Civil Forfeiture is the loss of property to the government because the property is believed to have been associated with criminal activity. Under this law, civilians are not required to be charged with a crime to have their personal belongings seized by the federal government because it is an in rem action, meaning the trial is against their possessions, not the civilian personally. The members of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives should place restraints on 18 US Code § 981, commonly known as Civil Forfeiture, because it is an unconstitutional law that allows corrupt police officers to take advantage of innocent citizens, it has proven to be exceedingly expensive and difficult to regain possession
…show more content…
Law enforcement agencies are able to keep some, if not all, of the money they obtained from Civil Forfeiture to spend on items the agency wants to purchase. Robert Brouillard, author of “Civil Forfeiture in Oregon: Efforts Toward Effective and Equitable Change”, states that the government can keep or get rid of the items that were forfeited (457). Most agencies will either sell the non-cash property to get proceeds for their agency or keep the money that was originally forfeited. Instead of forfeited money going towards useful items that could help keep the community safer, some agencies buy items that are considered highly unnecessary. Nick Sibilla, author of the article “IJ Briefs Lawmakers”, says that police have spent this forfeited money on items such as expensive leisure trips, sports cars, and even an agency owned margarita machine (n.pag). If police officers need money so that they can purchase items needed to keep cities safe, the government should offer an ample amount of money to them. If were the case, officers would not feel the need to misuse the power of forfeiture. Forfeitured money should be regulated so that the money can only be spent on new items such as advanced weapons, traffic cameras, and other miscellaneous items that promote the overall safety of the
Law enforcement agencies are able to keep some, if not all, of the money they obtained from Civil Forfeiture to spend on items the agency wants to purchase. Robert Brouillard, author of “Civil Forfeiture in Oregon: Efforts Toward Effective and Equitable Change”, states that the government can keep or get rid of the items that were forfeited (457). Most agencies will either sell the non-cash property to get proceeds for their agency or keep the money that was originally forfeited. Instead of forfeited money going towards useful items that could help keep the community safer, some agencies buy items that are considered highly unnecessary. Nick Sibilla, author of the article “IJ Briefs Lawmakers”, says that police have spent this forfeited money on items such as expensive leisure trips, sports cars, and even an agency owned margarita machine (n.pag). If police officers need money so that they can purchase items needed to keep cities safe, the government should offer an ample amount of money to them. If were the case, officers would not feel the need to misuse the power of forfeiture. Forfeitured money should be regulated so that the money can only be spent on new items such as advanced weapons, traffic cameras, and other miscellaneous items that promote the overall safety of the