Hawaii Can Auction Off Your Car Without Ever Convicting You
Civil forfeiture allows the government of Hawaii to take your property and sell it for profit without proving you did anything wrong.

Online shoppers can bid on a sleek black Camaro, a commercial fishing boat, silver coins, and other items at a first-of-its-kind government auction today. However, the news release announcing the event from Hawaii's Department of the Attorney General does not tell the full story.
The state is vague about where it got these items to be auctioned. Public records show the government took nine of the 15 vehicles available from people who were never convicted. Overall, only seven of the 26 people named in these cases were convicted of any crimes.
Much or perhaps all of this property comes from civil forfeiture—a moneymaking scheme that allows the government to take and permanently keep cash, cars, and other valuables that are suspected to be connected with criminal activity without having to prove wrongdoing in criminal court.
Hawaii allows prosecutors to initiate forfeiture administratively for any property worth less than $100,000 and for all cars, planes, and boats. Once this happens, 96 percent of cases end without ever reaching a judge.
Property owners can demand their day in civil court, but they must file a hefty bond and pay for their own defense. This can be a problem when court costs outweigh the value of seized assets, which is the norm. Hawaii does not provide the data due to weak reporting laws, but the median currency forfeiture in 21 states with greater transparency is around $1,200—far below the amount needed to pay an attorney to mount a defense.
Many property owners do the math and walk away. Others waive their right to a trial and allow the Department of the Attorney General to adjudicate their cases instead, putting property owners in front of state attorneys working on the same side as the police.
Either way, the process is rigged. Hawaii allows law enforcement agencies to prevail with little more than guesswork. They do not have to specify when or where a crime occurred, who committed the crime, or how. They just have to show by a "preponderance of the evidence" that seized property has some plausible connection to wrongdoing. This means the state only needs a 51 percent probability of being right, even when cases get to court.
Speculation and innuendo often suffice to meet this standard. Our public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, has seen just about everything in cases nationwide. Talking too much, talking too little, acting too nervous, acting too calm, making too much eye contact, or making too little eye contact can all substitute for actual evidence—the kind that would hold up in a criminal trial.
Once a civil forfeiture case ends, Hawaii allows law enforcement agencies to keep 100 percent of the proceeds for themselves. The result is a perverse incentive to police for profit. The more an agency seizes, the more it can forfeit for off-budget expenses.
"The proceeds generated from auctions are used to fund law enforcement activities such as training and equipment, as well as to support program expenses," the Department of the Attorney General writes in its news release.
This is mostly correct. In reality, the bulk of forfeiture proceeds in Hawaii covers personnel, including salaries and overtime pay. In other words, the money goes into the pockets of the people in charge of seizures and forfeitures, creating even more incentives to patrol and prosecute aggressively.
The next biggest chunk of forfeiture revenue in Hawaii goes toward police travel and training. Yet nobody knows the frequency of these trips or the destinations because Hawaii does not track the data. Forfeiture reporting exists, but not with sufficient detail to allow meaningful oversight.
State lawmakers allow agencies to operate largely in the dark, inviting abuse. Many of the vehicles up for auction on Tuesday show what can go wrong.
The owners of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro were not convicted. Neither were the owners of a 2010 Acura or a 2012 Honda Civic. More broadly, Hawaii does not even require an arrest for property to be seized and auctioned off.
Hawaii deserves better. State lawmakers could start by strengthening forfeiture reporting and adding constitutional safeguards like the right to counsel. Hawaii House Bill 126 and Senate Bill 722 would be steps in the right direction. Even better, Hawaii could join states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Wisconsin by making significant reforms, in which police could still take and keep property, but only when they prove wrongdoing and prove the seized property is connected to that crime.
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
I don't remember Grand Theft Auto having missions where you just sit back and let the mechanism of the state do all the crime. They need the "Civil Asset Forfeiture" sequel.
That would be a truly crappy movie. Except to kleptomaniac socialists.
The biggest criminals work for The State.
Government officials don’t make errors.
/sarcjeff
That's a whole shitload of free rent
How do we distinguish this from the 18th century practice against pirates and smugglers?
In that era and practice, the act of stepping forward to assert ownership of the seized property would be an inherent confession to the crime of piracy or smuggling. Civil asset forfeiture was the legal fiction by which the government could take legal ownership when no owner was ever going to step forward.
The modern equivalent might be a kilo of heroin dropped in the middle of the street during an interrupted drug deal. No sane person is going to step forward and say "that's my heroin" but the government can't leave it lying in the street, either. They need some legal basis to take ownership of the drugs so they can dispose of them. CAF satisfies that need.
It is easily distinguished from the examples in the article above because the owners are all known. Where the owner is known, there is no valid purpose to CAF. Prosecute the owner and, if you win, seize the assets as part of the sentence.
But are the forfeitures equitable?
Only the haoles get jacked?
Looks like the "Spirit of Aloha" is alive, well, and prevalent over there.
[Don't need no stinking Constitution when you have the "Spirit of Aloha"]
Democrats.
Just to be clear, civil forfeiture exists in 49 states and Washington, D.C., and at the federal level. The only state that has opted out completely is New Mexico. (Arizona, Wisconsin, and North Carolina also have decent laws.) The biggest friend of civil forfeiture in recent years was Republican Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Overall, civil forfeiture is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats both love policing for profit.
Never going to complete my 50 states checklist since I'm never going to Hawaii.
The purpose of Hawaii is to make California look sensible and moderate.
Hawaii is there to give our enemies in Asia something to bomb.
"Civil forfeiture allows the government of Hawaii to take your property and sell it for profit without proving you did anything wrong."
Well, what did you expect from a bunch of progressive turds running the state?
Due process?
Eliminate Civil Asshole Forfeiture.
Can't wait until Trump or Musk suggests we do, and how bad an idea it will be after that. This entire process has run amuck. The power needs to be revoked. Then off to Qualified Immunity...
Trump already had his chance in 2017. Instead of opposing civil forfeiture, he let Attorney General Jeff Sessions undo the modest reforms that Obama had put in place. Overall, Republicans and Democrats support policing for profit.
"Civil Asshole Forfeiture" = Private Property Theft = Taxation
Who is "ultimately" responsible? ALL the Founding Fathers were crystal clear on this matter: "We the People", as Ben Franklin said, "A republic, IF you can keep it." We didn't.
Unpossible. AT has assured us that only crooks get stuff taken away via CAF, and if he were innocent no cost would be too high to get a ~$10K car returned.
Property owners can demand their day in civil court, but they must file a hefty bond and pay for their own defense. This can be a problem when court costs outweigh the value of seized assets, which is the norm.
Again, I don't know why we have to have this conversation - but it's not rocket science to mount your own defense on this kinda thing. Especially when you're in the right.
As for the bond, you get it back when you win. So, what's the issue here people? And if you lose, guess what - it pays for the costs of your having wasted the court's time. So it's not like you have to pay costs on top of the bond.
Many property owners do the math and walk away.
Then they lose the right to complain, don't they.
It makes me want to come punch you in the face as hard as I can, like really screw up your face and knock out a few teeth - and then pin an itemized projected court/attorney fees bill on your shirt so that when you wake up you can decide whether it's "worth it" to put up with a rights deprivation or try and sue me for intentional battery.
That's essentially what you're arguing here. How much are your rights worth to you?
If you're not going to fight it, then don't complain about it. That's just whining. Period.
Either way, the process is rigged. Hawaii allows law enforcement agencies to prevail with little more than guesswork. They do not have to specify when or where a crime occurred, who committed the crime, or how. They just have to show by a "preponderance of the evidence" that seized property has some plausible connection to wrongdoing.
Which is an easy standard to beat if all your business/banking dealings are on the up and up.
Again, we're back to the simple factual reality that LOLertarians don't want to admit: CAF works because criminals won't challenge it. Because doing so means serving up evidence of their crimes. It's no different than if the cops stumble across a bag of coke and cash. "Whose drugs and money are these????"
Are YOU going to answer, "Mine!"
Because if your answer is anything but that, then your ONLY protest against CAF is that you really just want more people getting away with crime. And there's nothing righteous or laudable about your position at all.
Our public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, has seen just about everything in cases nationwide.
Just out of curiosity, Dan and Elyse - how many of these CAF cases are you taking pro bono? I mean, if you're really that worked up about them, if the subject is that near and dear to your heart, then why aren't you working without fees (and posting the bonds/eating the costs yourself) on 100% of CAF challenges?
You seem to be confused about the 4th amendment. The term is "unreasonable" search and seizure. Seizing assets without due cause, in this case a commission of a crime, clearly violates that 4th amendment.
Lord, how many times do I have to do this. I'm not confused about 4A. You are. 4A deals with criminal search and seizure - ie. depriving YOU of your rights. CAF is not criminal search and seizure.
It's Civil Asset Forfeiture. (The clue is in the name.) It's not about YOU, it's about the civil asset. YOU have rights. Your property, in and of itself, does not.
You have a bag full of drugs and money and maybe even a motor vehicle and a small armory (let's just say it's a Bag of Holding). Its contents - because they're pretty sussy on their face - are reasonably concluded to be part and parcel to the commission of a crime.
They remove said bag from the chain of criminal enterprise. It's still your bag. You still have 100% absolute claim and right to it and its contents. Maybe it wasn't in the chain of criminal enterprise in the first place - I guess it's entirely arguable that goatee'd rogues on the chaotic-good (or even lawful-evil) scale would have Bags of Holding for non-nefarious purposes.
So you go to court and say, "Judge, bruh, I ain't no criminal - and these jackboots can't tie any aspect of this to any crime. Listen, they'll tell you themselves!"
Which they will, assuming you're not actually a criminal and your asset wasn't part of criminal action - and then you'll get your Bag of Holding back.
Unless, of course, you actually are a criminal - in which case your stuff was rightfully seized, civilly, even if they ultimately chose not to pursue criminal charges against you. Which is likely why you didn't challenge the CAF in the first place - because you know where that was leading.
"You never convicted me of making/selling meth," doesn't mean you get your Winnebago meth lab and all its equipment back, Strider. Or that you've had some 4A violation on account of having all your meth production/distribution tools taken away from you.
YOU have rights. Your property, in and of itself, does not.
The plain text of the Fourth Amendment reads otherwise.
The reason CAF is currently legal is that the government has just decided that they can take anything you own and call it a civil forfeiture and that makes it not an 'unreasonable' search and seizure. An armed robber can call the take from a bank heist a donation. But theft by any other name is still theft.
Read it again, NPC.
Just start with the first five words. See if you can suss out if they're talking about human beings or motor vehicles.
I quoted the Amendment in its entirety for you. Pro tip: Don't stop reading after just five words.
Fourth Amendment: The people have the right to not have their property stolen from them.
AT: Yeah, but property doesn't have the right to not be stolen from people!
It's not being stolen, NPC.
That's your programming at work.
I think there was a Floridaman recently busted for literally carrying around a bag labeled, "BAG FULL OF DRUGS." Which, of course, was exactly as described.
The cops did not "steal" his bag full of drugs. They confiscated it legally on the correct belief that it was part and parcel to criminal activity. CAF is no different, it just applies to things that aren't obviously obvious contraband. And CAF gives you the very simple process of going on down to the courthouse and saying, "Judge, that ain't contraband!" to get it back.
But noooo, the programming has its hold on you, doesn't it. You will never ever be able to think for yourself because of it.
Break the programming Chipbot. Break it. You can be free of it. You CAN think for yourself, if you only just CHOOSE to!
You’re still not getting it. If a criminal has his property seized after committing a crime, that is not civil asset forfeiture. That is criminal asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture occurs without the charging of a crime. The fourth amendment does not say anything to do with crime. Read it again. It was posted above.
If someone is a criminal, they should be charged with the crimes that the state feels they have committed. This must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and then and only then the state can see their property.
Whining and calling people NPCs does not make your argument valid. In fact, it suggests that even you don’t have much faith in the argument that you made initially. Stop digging.
Dan and Elyse work for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm. Every case is pro bono. Regarding your other comments:
1. Navigating the civil forfeiture maze is difficult by design. You are guilty by default, meaning you must earn your way to court. It is not automatic. Terry and Ria Platt, a retired couple from Washington state, tried to represent themselves but failed to include the phrase “under penalty of perjury” with their signatures on the required paperwork. This was enough for them to lose their car. Cristal Starling in New York lost her cash because she missed a filing deadline.
2. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a very low standard. It basically means a coin toss. This means the police can be wrong 50.1 percent of the time.
3. Many property owners are innocent third parties, meaning they are not even implicated in wrongdoing. Detroit resident Melisa Ingram loaned her car to her then-boyfriend because he told her he needed it to attend a job interview. Instead, police allege he used the vehicle to commit a crime. Melisa did nothing wrong, but prosecutors held her car ransom anyway, demanding payment. Cristal and the Platts were also innocent third parties.
Navigating the civil forfeiture maze is difficult by design.
And we live in the age of information and AI-assist. Trust me, it's not hard. If you're on the up and up, a CAF challenge is easier than an uncontested divorce.
The reason Reason has a bug in its bonnet is because they're trying to provide cover for folks who aren't on the up and up. Especially those in the drug trade.
You are guilty by default, meaning you must earn your way to court. It is not automatic.
There is no "guilt" or "innocence." It's not a criminal proceeding.
Look, think of it this way: Take the property owner completely out of the equation. Let's assume we're talking about a CAF seized vehicle.
"This car," the judge says, "is alleged to be directly involved in the furtherance of criminal activity." On one side (the folks doing the seizing), they present evidence that is in fact so and justifies the seizure in order to disrupt the criminal activity (which, incidentally, is why guilt or innocence of the owner for any related alleged crime is irrelevant). On the other, they challenge this notion with evidence to the contrary. The judge then decides whether the evidence is sufficient (preponderance standard), or whether the evidence to the contrary overcomes it.
The car is on trial, effectively. One side is advocating on its behalf, the other against. It's not a question of "is the car guilty or not guilty," it's "was it directly involved in the furtherance of criminal activity." If it was, its seizure was proper. If it's not, it's returned to its owner.
And if nobody comes to advocate on behalf of the property (almost invariably because it would expose their involvement in criminal activity), then there's no evidence argued before the court that the seizure was improper. In fact, the fact that someone shows up at all to contest it is often a big check mark in the "release the seized property to them and return their bond" column.
Why is it a preponderance standard, you might be asking? Again - it's a car. Bill of Rights doesn't apply to it. And it's not a criminal matter, not that it has a presumption of innocence even if it were. Also don't be fooled into thinking that a couple G-men saying, "Uh, because we said so" will satisfy as "preponderance of evidence." Because it won't, at least when it's challenged.
Look, I'll make it even simpler than that. Forget the car. Instead, it's a briefcase full of counterfeit hundies. It's MY briefcase full of counterfeit hundies, but they're counterfeit hundies all the same. Now, there's no evidence that I'm engaged in counterfeiting (aside carrying a briefcase full of funny money) - and I haven't even been arrested for it, let alone charged. But they're not just going to release a briefcase full of counterfeit hundreds back to me so that it can possibly go into criminal circulation. They're going to take those counterfeit hundies (maybe leave me the briefcase).
At which point I'm given the opportunity to go to court and say, "Judge, dude, it was for a movie. If they'd flipped even a single one over they'd see it said, 'NOT REAL MONEY, NO COMMERCIAL VALUE' printed plain as day on them. Can I please have them back so I can go shoot the hostage exchange scene?" Or, I might say, "Let's just get another briefcase full of prop money, this isn't worth the hassle." Of course, both of those scenarios are conditioned on the fact that I'm on the up and up.
As is more often the case, however, it actually was counterfeit money, and nobody's going to show up to claim their clearly used in illegal activity property.
This is why CAF is so effective. It's laser-targeted against criminal activity. But it's not foolproof, so it provides a VERY simple process for anyone wrongfully caught up in it to straighten things out. Reason likes to hyperventilate into a paper bag about how "impossible" this is for people without procedural gymnastics and/or five or six figures worth of attorney's fees - but consider the pro-crime axe they're grinding while they do so.
Which is why they take this "it's not worth it" angle they take as they decry the "injustice" is so offensive. "Waah, CAF is wrong because people can't be bothered to stand up for their rights."
What the f "libertarian" even says something like that.
Terry and Ria Platt, a retired couple from Washington state, tried to represent themselves but failed to include the phrase “under penalty of perjury” with their signatures on the required paperwork. This was enough for them to lose their car. Cristal Starling in New York lost her cash because she missed a filing deadline.
That's the 5th Amendment at work. It keeps things fair and even for everyone. Doesn't matter if you're a layman or Atticus Finch - the rules are always the same for everyone. (Actually, the layman usually gets a lot of latitude, precisely because of their ignorance. Which... well, that ticks me off, but that's a subject for another day.)
"Preponderance of the evidence" is a very low standard. It basically means a coin toss.
No, it doesn't even remotely "basically mean" that. That's absurd, and you should be ashamed of yourself - and you owe an apology to the American Justice System, everyone who works for it, and to the Constitution - for posting it.
It means: demonstrably more likely than not. Scales clearly gotta tip in one direction. Doesn't have to be a resounding thud, like criminal proof has to be, but it's gotta be pretty -this- to _that_.
Many property owners are innocent third parties, meaning they are not even implicated in wrongdoing.
Yea, that sucks. Imagine renting your place out to an AirBNB and they bust a popup meth lab there while you're gone.
But again, it's not about the owner - it's about the property and its involvement in criminal enterprise. Now it's evidence. (And I'm not even going to take us down the rabbit hole of spoilation, but that justifies it all on its own.)
If someone steals my gun and commits a murder with it, don't think for a second that I'm getting the gun back right away. It's mine - I had no criminal involvement in its misuse in any way. That gun is going into a box, inside a bag, with a tag on it. "What about my property rights," I say?
"Take it up with the thief," they'll say, "He screwed you. Not us."
And they're not wrong. And you've got a slam-dunk civil action against said thief for the value of the property.
If it's worth it to you. Which, if it's not, then shut up.
That is some class A bullshit from top to bottom.
No, the CAF dispute process is not "easier than an uncontested divorce". Depending on the jurisdiction, there are arbitrarily short deadlines and ruthless standards for errors on forms. And because of those deadlines, by the time you find out about your mistake, you are forever barred from correcting it. The process is evil from the word go.
Contrary to your next claim, the folks seizing the car do not have to present evidence supporting their claim that the car was "involved in the futherance of criminal activity". They merely allege it. The burden then falls to the owner to rebut that claim. And, again, miss one tiny detail or deadline and you permanently lose your legal right to do so.
But even if the standard were what you claim, it would be outrageously stupid! Just like guns don't kill people, cars don't commit crimes. They are inanimate objects. They have no agency and cannot "be involved" in anything. They are used by people for either good or evil (or neutral) purposes.
Now, you are on somewhat stronger ground when you talk about property that is contraband by its very nature (counterfeit money or drugs). Dealing with those situations is what CAF was originally intended for. If it were cabined to those situations, no one would be complaining today. But that is clearly not the case in the vast majority of forfeitures.
Language.
No, the CAF dispute process is not "easier than an uncontested divorce". Depending on the jurisdiction, there are arbitrarily short deadlines and ruthless standards for errors on forms.
Then your problem isn't with CAF - it's with the rules of civil procedure. Also, what argument are you even making here?
"Bruh, they took your car."
"Yea, I'm going to fight it - but first I think I'll stand around holding my nuts in my hand for awhile. And then make no effort whatsoever to learn any aspect of what I need to do to get it back."
Well, OK, I guess that's a plan. Don't expect it to be a successful one.
Contrary to your next claim, the folks seizing the car do not have to present evidence supporting their claim that the car was "involved in the futherance of criminal activity".
Yea they do. The "mere allegation" only works when nobody contests it.
The burden then falls to the owner to rebut that claim.
Which, again, is easy peasy lemon squeezy japaneezy extra cheesy when you're on the up and up.
But even if the standard were what you claim, it would be outrageously stupid! Just like guns don't kill people, cars don't commit crimes. They are inanimate objects. They have no agency and cannot "be involved" in anything.
Again, my briefcase full of funny money or the gun stolen from me that was used in a murder.
I'm not getting it back. And why should I, absent clear evidence that it was wrongfully seized?
But that is clearly not the case in the vast majority of forfeitures.
Hence why it's not about convicting a criminal - it's about neutering the ability of a criminal to do crime.
Y'know, this is a ridiculous example (especially since the book is an overall tale warning about fascism, told through the main character that slowly turns his brain over to the State) - but this is when they're in boot - and still thinking on their own - and hey it accurately applies here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B203twyaMfM
"The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
That's CAF. Disable the hand.
"As for the bond...it pays for the cost of having wasted the court's time." And who pays for the cost of wasting the victim's time? No complaint would be necessary if armed robbery were not made profitable by an unconstitutional (null & void) law. We the people are witnessing the conspiracy within all branches of the govt. to exploit those who created govt. to serve & protect them, NOT themselves.
What would happen if SCOTUS found asset forfeiture to be unconstitutional and made Hawaii pay back all of those who's assets were seized?
Something like that has happened when a large theft occurred, was successfully challenged, and the court ordered it returned. The agency refused, saying the money was spent and some shared with the feds.
Who will force the "law enforcers" to obey the law? That is supposed to be "we the people", but it takes bravery since we are outgunned.
Dan, Elyse: "civil forfeiture" = property right denial.
"Hawaii allows prosecutors" = The state authorizes itself to commit armed robbery.
"Property owners can demand their day in civil court." = Victims can beg the thieves for justice.
"Hawaii allows law enforcement agencies to prevail." = Thieves deny justice.
"State lawmakers allow agencies to operate in the dark." = The crooks stick together, keeping their actions secret.
"Hawaii deserves better." Not really. When sovereign citizens act like servants, rulers will abuse and exploit them.