Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-122_1b7d.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  580 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

forfeiture  has  in  recent  decades  become  widespread  and 
highly  profitable.  See,  e.g.,  Institute  for  Justice,  D.  Car-
penter, L. Knepper, A. Erickson,  & J. McDonald, Policing 
for  Profit:  The  Abuse  of  Civil  Asset  Forfeiture  10  (2d  ed.
Nov. 2015) (Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund 
took  in  $4.5  billion  in  2014  alone),  https://ij.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/policing-for-profit-2nd-edition.pdf 
(as  last  visited  Feb.  27,  2017).    And  because  the  law  en-
forcement entity responsible for seizing the property often 
keeps  it,  these  entities  have  strong  incentives  to  pursue
forfeiture.  Id., at 14 (noting that the Federal Government 
and many States permit 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds
to  flow  directly  to  law  enforcement);  see  also  App.  to  Pet. 
for  Cert.  B–2  (directing  that  the  money  in  this  case  be 
divided  between  the  “Cleveland  Police  Department”  and
the “Liberty County District Attorney’s Office”). 

This  system—where  police  can  seize  property  with 
limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—
has  led  to  egregious  and  well-chronicled  abuses.  Accord-
ing to one nationally publicized report, for example, police
in  the  town  of  Tenaha,  Texas,  regularly  seized  the  prop- 
erty of out-of-town drivers passing through and collaborated 
with  the  district  attorney  to  coerce  them  into  signing
waivers  of  their  property  rights.  Stillman,  Taken,  The 
New Yorker, Aug. 12 & 19, 2013, pp. 54–56.  In one case, 
local  officials  threatened  to  file  unsubstantiated  felony
charges  against  a  Latino  driver  and  his  girlfriend  and  to 
place  their  children  in  foster  care  unless  they  signed  a
waiver.  Id.,  at  49.  In  another,  they  seized  a  black  plant 
worker’s  car  and  all  his  property  (including  cash  he
planned  to  use  for  dental  work),  jailed  him  for  a  night,
forced  him  to  sign  away  his  property,  and  then  released
him on the side of the road without a phone or money.  Id., 
at  51.  He  was  forced  to  walk  to  a  Wal-Mart,  where  he 
borrowed a stranger’s phone to call his mother, who had to 
rent a car to pick him up.  Ibid.