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!
I got to 'aspiring rap artist' and quit.
Like every aspiring actress, aspiring country music singer, aspiring athlete, if the person were really destined to be their occupation and the cops really did put up a roadblock, we wouldn't be using the word 'aspiring'. And the fact that we're using the word 'aspiring' means, if anything, whether you agree with whether they should or not, the cops slowed the aspiring occupationalist from flushing their money down the toilet or took their money from them and flushed it down a different toilet.
“Aspiring editor” can join the ranks of a periodical that is subsidized by a Daddy Warbucks type instead making enough scratch on its own merit.
Post your bank account number and the routing number so that I can take $8,500 from your account and not return it. Apparently you think the 5th and 14th Amendment protections only apply to people whose careers you approve of. I don't approve of yours, so I am going to do to you what the government did to this victim, and you won't fight me.
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.
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.
Given that you don't seem to understand the difference between a plaintiff and a prosecutor it seems highly likely that you underestimate how much of a loser you actually are.
If I sue you for being a loser and you lose, you're volunteering to pay for my legal fees?
If the prosecution pursues bogus charges and loses, pay up.
There is no prosecutor in a CAF action.
(Psst. The hint is in the name.)
I want eco-freaks to pay up when they push bogus climate lawsuits
Those would be plaintiffs in such an action.
I want the government to pay up when they use my taxes to defend corrupt government employees
Successfully or unsuccessfully?
Also, I really don't think you understand the clear and fundamental differences between Civil Courts and Criminal Courts. Maybe go read about that a bit, and then come on back here.
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
Well if they're going after icky people like Elon Musk or DJT then millions of dollars per hour in legal fees forced on the icky people is just simple justice and Jacob the liar will have nothing to say about it.
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.
I'm pretty convinced you're Jacob Sullum.
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.
That's not what it's designed to do. And that it is effective in what it IS designed to do is precisely why you hate it.
Post your bank account # and routing # so that I can take $8,500 out of your account. You will probably get it back years later but only if you pay out of pocket for big legal fees.
And you will deserve that suffering because you have no compassion for those who have been wronged by the government. What is a statist like you doing commenting on a libertarian site?
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.
'research has found that most U.S. currency contains traces of cocaine'
Nobody tell Sarc.
Gee, without civil asset forfeiture, how will law enforcement and government bureaucrats pay for their third vacation home in the Bahamas?
Has any one ever thought about that?
research has found that most U.S. currency contains traces of cocaine
Needs more "ROADSYDE DRUG TESTS SCIENCE IZ JUNK SCIENCE!"
It's PCR cycles until the money tests positive of COVID all the way down.
"the government claimed a drug-detecting dog "alerted" to Moore's money"
Since there are still no double-blind scientific studies that confirm drug-sniffing dogs "alert" on drugs while failing to "alert" on other non-drug substances (see "Clever Hans") without the absence of possibly subliminal clues from their handlers, such "evidence" should have no legal basis. And even if we accept the dog's "alerting" is a cause for reasonable suspicion on the scene, it does not excuse punishing "suspects" without even probable cause that a crime has been committed. The entire premise of this is purely fictional, serving only as an excuse for law enforcement abuse.
Hey, wait, I have a fix!!!
HELP-HELP-HELP, won’t someone please give me some good advice?!!? I have a most EXCELLENT tax-money-saving idea that I’d like to put in to the Departments of Our Heroic Protectors in Government Almighty all across the land, and I just don’t know WHERE to submit my brilliant money-saving idea; PLEASE help. Idea summary: REAL drug-sniffing dogs are expensive to train, feed, house, and transport. EFFIGY dogs (think sock-puppet-doggie on officer’s hand) would be FAR less expensive! Officer waves sock-puppet-effigy-dog slowly over car, says wuff-wuff-wuff quietly and softly, then reaches trunk of car, goes WOOF-WOOF-WOOF loudly and urgently, now the car can be searched! Problem solved, cost-effectively! Woo-Hoo!!! … Now… HOW do we spread this most excellent idea? Please advise… This excellent idea brought to you by the Church of Scienfoology, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ …
such "evidence" should have no legal basis.
Except of the fact that its mere existence is automatic evidence of criminal activity. Contraband, by definition, illustrates criminal activity - even if you don't know whose.
It's not like a kitchen knife, which could be misused to commit a crime. Contraband is criminal evidence by its very nature.
even if we accept the dog's "alerting" is a cause for reasonable suspicion on the scene
Which we do. But by all means, tell me more about the "subliminal cues" as you fold me a tin-foil hat to wear for the conversation.
it does not excuse punishing "suspects" without even probable cause that a crime has been committed
If I find you with a whole bunch (or even just a little bit) of heroin, a crime has necessarily been committed. The discovery of the heroin itself is the basis for probable cause.
Good Lord man, stop reading ACAB slashfics and learn a thing or two about how your own justice system works.
Smart and benevolent people, when reading AT's PervFected Cop-Sucking Rants, swill recall that AT stands for AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian, and that AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian has NEVER met ANY punishment (of other than Shitself and Shit's Imagined Admirers and Slurporters, and THESE excluded only sometimes) that Shit does SNOT Pervfectly ADORE!
PUNISHMENT = = JUSTICE, damn-shit-all!!!!
"Except of the fact that its mere existence is automatic evidence of criminal activity."
Where "it" is the act of a dog alerting?
If you agree with the premise that nearly all cash in circulation contains enough traces of cocaine for a police dog to alert, then you must also agree that anyone carrying cash for any reason is engaged in illegal activity, since a dog will alert to it.
If so, how many times have you engaged in illegal activity by having cash in your wallet?
You don't need a double blind just set it up so the handler doesn't know where the drugs are either!
All court cases should be loser pays.