Congress Considers Conditions on the Government's License To Steal
The FAIR Act includes several substantial reforms that would make it harder to take property from innocent owners through civil forfeiture.

Two years ago, the FBI seized the contents of safe deposit boxes used by hundreds of people at U.S. Private Vaults, a Beverly Hills business that offered secure storage for cash and other valuables. One of those dismayed customers was Linda Martin, a Los Angeles resident whose box contained $40,200 that she and her husband had saved for a deposit on a new home.
Martin, whose money was seized without any evidence that she was involved in illegal activity, is still trying to get it back. Her predicament is emblematic of the injustice wrought by civil asset forfeiture, a system of legalized larceny that allows law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets by confiscating allegedly crime-tainted property without charging, let alone convicting, the owner.
A bill that has attracted bipartisan support in Congress aims to address that problem. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act includes several substantial reforms that would make it harder for the federal government to take assets from innocent people like Martin.
The FAIR Act, which Reps. Tim Walberg (R‒Mich.) and Jamie Raskin (D‒Md.) reintroduced in March, would eliminate the perverse financial incentive that encourages agencies like the FBI to seize first and ask questions later (if ever). It would assign forfeiture proceeds to the general fund instead of letting the seizing agency keep the loot.
The bill also would eliminate the "equitable sharing" program that lets state and local agencies keep up to 80 percent of the revenue from forfeitures they initiate. By authorizing confiscation under federal law, that program invites money-hungry cops to circumvent state reforms that make forfeiture harder or less profitable.
Nearly all federal forfeitures are "administrative," meaning they are completed without judicial oversight. Instead, the agency that wants to keep someone's property decides whether it can—an obvious conflict of interest that the FAIR Act would eliminate by requiring that federal courts approve forfeitures.
As Martin discovered, challenging a forfeiture is complicated and daunting. Because she filed a "petition for remission," for example, she inadvertently conceded that her property was subject to forfeiture, meaning she could recover it only if the Justice Department decided that was fair.
This process is very difficult to navigate without a lawyer. Yet owners of seized assets, unlike criminal defendants, have no right to legal representation, and they often find that paying an attorney costs more than their property is worth. The FAIR Act would change that by authorizing court-appointed counsel in civil forfeiture cases.
To keep seized property under current federal law, the government needs to prove it is more likely than not that it was derived from or facilitated a crime. The FAIR Act raises that standard to "clear and convincing evidence," and it enhances protections for innocent owners: When another person uses someone's property to commit a crime, the government would have the burden of proving that the owner "knowingly consented or was willfully blind" to that unlawful use.
The most straightforward way to stop forfeiture abuse would be to require a criminal conviction, a step that several states have taken. The FAIR Act does not go that far, and it would still allow seizures based on "probable cause," a minimal standard that in practice often amounts to nothing more than a vague, unsubstantiated allegation.
According to a federal lawsuit that the Institute for Justice filed on Martin's behalf in March, the notice of a pending forfeiture that she received from the FBI "accused her of no crime and stated no facts connecting her to any crime." Instead, it "alluded to nearly twenty federal forfeiture statutes that broadly incorporate hundreds of federal crimes."
The complaint notes that "the FBI still has Linda's property" and wants to keep it but "has not told her why." That Kafkaesque situation, which innocent Americans across the country experience every year, vividly illustrates the need for reform, and the FAIR Act represents an important step in that direction.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wow, did I actually see a comment section BEFORE the spambots got there?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on.the accompanying site…
.
.
Following this information:-:-:-:-:-:-:- https://Www.Coins71.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone
???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
.
.
.
Here is I started HERE——-⫸≻Reason7.com
And yet if you were to get a gun and start shooting these fuckers in the face all the headlines would be about a crazy person who just snapped for no reason at all.
And "our brave heroes" in the FBI.
Great comment. This bill will NEVER pass. The criminal syndicate of the federal law enforcement will see to that.
Just because the government does it doesn't mean it's legal, or should be.
I have a better idea. If, according to the theory of deodand, the guilt is in the thing to be forfeited, it should be required to be destroyed rather than made use of. What agency is going to want to seize goods, real estate, or cash if they have to destroy it rather than turning around and selling it or keeping it for their own use? If the thing itself is guilty, how does its passage thru the sovereign's hands expiate its guilt?
What agency is going to want to seize goods, real estate, or cash if they have to destroy it rather than turning around and selling it or keeping it for their own use?
These are the same people who shoot dogs and toss flashbangs into cribs while executing bench warrants. While destroying valuables isn't ideal, they'd settle for it just because of the harm it causes their victims.
That'd be minuscule compared to the schemes they've been using to rob people, policing for profit.
It would just be a different set of incentives.
It's a good thing those are totally different people from the brave heroes who shoot unarmed women in the face when they aren't leaving their gun in the shitter for the 5th time, right drunky?
The fifth amendment is like the second; it doesn't mean what it says, it means what the corrupt government officials say it means.
Interpretation is why we have challenges and different rulings.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
They gave Sullum a non-Trump assignment so he could clean the spittle off his keyboard.
They should call it YAFA for Yet Another FAIR Act since it seems to be a favorite bacronym for many bills. I wish I could con some congress critter into making a FAIR Act for me so I could get a ~9% raise.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/536
That said H.R. 1525 could be very simple and far better by stating:
"Section 983 of title 18, United States Code, is repealed"
FTFY
Gov-Guns don't make sh*t....
They ARMED-THEFT sh*t.....
As-if any 3rd grader couldn't figure that out. Yet with all the lefty propaganda out there confusing everyone. Democrat people seem to keep believing Gov-Guns can make sh*t.
567
It's shit government. If we chose our doctors by the democratic process, we'd all be dead.
Exactly why the USA is NOT a "democracy" but a *CONSTITUTIONAL* Republic.
The best you can say about the Orwellian-named "FAIR Act" is that half a loaf is better than none. Civil forfeiture should be outlawed unless and until the Government files criminal charges against (not merely arrests) the owner of the property, at which time the law should require a prompt (within 5 days, in the plaintiff's home jurisdiction if he chooses) judicial review to determine whether the Government has proved alleged criminal activity by at least a preponderance of the evidence If the court rules against the Government, the Government has three days (not three business days) to return the property at its expense to the plaintiff in the same condition as when it was seized. Of great importance, the fact that the plaintiff was carrying (or storing) an unusually large amount of cash may not be a dispositive factor, but must be supported by other objective evidence (not merely that the plaintiff was, e.g., "nervous," during the stop and seizure).
Humans cannot handle the responsibility. It must be outlawed.
There is no reasoning that even if these provisions were adopted and disseminated throughout law enforcement, they would adhere to any of them. Why? Because they have no incentive to follow the law. Who would stop them? The same instances of people chasing down law enforcement for stealing their assets through CAF would still be the same. You can't arrest the LEOs that did it. You'd have to go to court, hire a lawyer, and go through the process to retrieve those assets. It's a distinction without a difference.
The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate CAF altogether and have LEOs play the same fair game we have to play. The entire concept is not only unfair but unconstitutional and should be vacated completely as a matter of law. CAF doesn't follow any presumptions of law at all. It is simply a regulation that allows LEO to seize at their leisure. Any LEO could seize any property or asset you have without any due process. You're house, your car, your money, your possessions. It's absurd I even have to say it, but the government is public enemy #1 at this point.
SPOT ON!! What do you think about not being able to keep the assets seized? Unless I was looking for some sort of revenge I wouldn't bother if my agency couldn't keep it.