Compensation for Legal Fees Is a Critical Protection Against Civil Forfeiture Abuses
A recent federal appeals court decision underlines the importance of that safeguard.

On a Friday in March 2021, Brian Moore, an aspiring rap artist, was about to catch a flight from Atlanta to Los Angeles, where he planned to produce a video that he hoped would promote his musical career. To pay for the video, he was carrying $8,500 in cash, money he had inherited from his late grandfather.
Federal drug agents put an end to Moore's plan by taking his money, which they vaguely alleged was connected in some way to illegal drug activity. What happened next illustrates the importance of legal safeguards against the dangers posed by civil forfeiture, a system of legalized larceny that authorizes law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets by seizing supposedly crime-tainted assets without filing criminal charges, let alone obtaining a conviction.
While profit-motivated law enforcement agencies tend to portray it as inherently suspicious, there is nothing illegal about traveling with large sums of cash. And although the government claimed a drug-detecting dog "alerted" to Moore's money, that is less incriminating than it sounds, since research has found that most U.S. currency contains traces of cocaine.
The government's evidence was so weak that it decided to drop the case after Moore challenged the seizure in federal court. Moore got his money back, but he was still out thousands of dollars in legal fees until last week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that he was entitled to compensation for those expenses.
Unlike criminal defendants, civil forfeiture targets have no right to court-appointed counsel, which helps explain why they usually give up without a fight. According to one estimate, more than nine out of 10 federal civil forfeiture cases are resolved without judicial involvement.
Challenging a forfeiture is a complicated and daunting process that is very difficult to navigate without a lawyer. But the cost of hiring one typically exceeds the value of the seized property, meaning forfeiture targets can lose even when they win.
Congress tried to address that problem by passing the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), a 2000 law that says "the United States shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees" whenever a property owner "substantially prevails" in a federal forfeiture case. But when Moore got his money back and sought $15,000 to pay his lawyers, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled that he was not entitled to compensation under CAFRA because he had not met that standard.
Under Moore's contingency fee agreement with his lawyers, that decision left him on the hook for one-third of the money he had recovered. But with pro bono help from the Institute for Justice, Moore appealed Thrash's ruling, and a three-judge 11th Circuit panel unanimously concluded that the judge had misapplied CAFRA.
The government's prospects of winning at trial were so iffy that the Justice Department asked Thrash to dismiss the case with prejudice, precluding any future attempt to confiscate his money. According to the 11th Circuit, that judicially endorsed outcome was enough to conclude that Moore had "substantially prevail[ed]."
"We're pleased to see Brian made whole after years of litigation, but his case highlights the abusive civil forfeiture tactics used by the federal government, which will litigate a case against a property owner for years and then voluntarily dismiss the case on the eve of the government's defeat," says Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dan Alban. "Without the ability to recover their attorneys' fees after victory, most property owners cannot afford to defend their property from forfeiture"—a reality that motivated the "critical protections for property rights" that Congress approved in 2000.
"It's a huge relief to have the court agree that I should get all my money back," Moore says. "Even though the government couldn't say what I did wrong and dropped the case, I was going to lose thousands of dollars. I hope that my victory can pave the way for others to get justice without paying a price."
© Copyright 2025 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
JS;dr
Fucking pathetic LOSERS have nothing better to do with their time other than to BRAG about being lazy and ignorant!
JS;dr
VD;dr. VD (Venereal Disease) is some BAD shit! Go see the Dr. if you've got the VD!!! THAT is why I say VD;dr.!!!
(Some forms of VD also cause bona fide mental illness… THINK about shit! VD is NOTHING to "clap" about!)
A good outcome which shouldn't have needed an act of Congress to be possible.
It should be loser pays everything, always. Lost wages, investigative expenses, travel expenses -- everything that was spent because of the case. Especially when it's the bottomless pit of other people's money that the government has available. And it should come from the prosecutor's budget.
It should be loser pays everything, always.
So long as the loser is the plaintiff, is what I'm sure you meant to say.
The (not totally broke, having deep pockets) defendant ALWAYS pays out the ASS when the plaintiff wins, PervFected Dipshit!!! If I said I can't see in the dark, would PervFected You mention that I forgot to add "...so long as I'm not outdoors during a sunny day"?
You sure are wrong.
I said loser, I meant loser.
If the prosecution pursues bogus charges and loses, pay up. If a guilty criminal tries to weasel out, pay up.
Actions have consequences, as they say. I want eco-freaks to pay up when they push bogus climate lawsuits because some corner of some park would get 15 extra minutes of shadow from building an apartment block, I want the government to pay up when they use my taxes to defend corrupt government employees, I want criminals to stop stalling and delaying and raising costs.
Just civil forfeiture abuse?
What about other abuses by the state?
What about other abuses by the state with assistance from private organizations?
What about other abuses by the state with assistance from private organizations whose nearly sole benefactors have financial interests in those abuses?
What if you’re a shill who assisted the state in said abuses because you worked for a private organization primarily funded by benefactors who had financial interests in those abuses?
What then Jacob?
Everyone's a PervFected Critic, GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND...
Why don'y YOU PervFectly answer all of Your PervFected Questions for us?
“Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.” — PJ O’Rourke
PS, twat about the cannibalism of Idi Amin? Twat then, GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND?
https://allthatsinteresting.com/idi-amin
Idi Amin Dada: The Murderous Cannibal Who Ruled Uganda
The government's evidence was so weak that it decided to drop the case after Moore challenged the seizure in federal court. Moore got his money back, but he was still out thousands of dollars in legal fees until last week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that he was entitled to compensation for those expenses.
So it all worked out the way it's supposed to. Justice prevails.
Thanks for finally admitting the truth about CAF, Jakey Fakey. IT WORKS.
Don't think you're going to have a lot of fans with this admission, I'm afraid. The rageoholic ACABs take this subject pretty
zealouslyseriously.Did You PervFectly actually READ the article, Pervfected One? Yes, shit came out OK after FIVE YEARS of trials! And this is MUCH so the exception rather than the rule!!! So stuff and shit is SNOT all "Don't worry, be happy" here!!!
Below is repeated from the article, if Ye can actually READ:
Unlike criminal defendants, civil forfeiture targets have no right to court-appointed counsel, which helps explain why they usually give up without a fight. According to one estimate, more than nine out of 10 federal civil forfeiture cases are resolved without judicial involvement.
Challenging a forfeiture is a complicated and daunting process that is very difficult to navigate without a lawyer. But the cost of hiring one typically exceeds the value of the seized property, meaning forfeiture targets can lose even when they win.
CAF is terrible. It ain't justice to get hauled through the courts like this, just because it's designed to make life miserable for innocent people. Just because it's working as designed doesn't mean it was designed properly.
I knew a person who had his computer seized by the FBI for alleged digital piracy. Took years to get it back, even after it was settled. I doubt they even booted it up. The action was intended to intimidate and punish the without the hassle of due process.
Remember, Democrats, that the sole sponsor of The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act Of 1984, which started modern asset forfeiture, was Joe Biden.