Civil asset forfeiture is a controversial law enforcement tool that allows authorities to take cash and property from people without ever convicting a person with a crime -- and in many cases, without even charging them.

AD

Sensenbrenner's bill would even the playing field somewhat between defendants and the government. For starters, it would provide legal representation for defendants who can't afford it in a civil case to get back their property. Even more important, it would shift the burden of proof from the property owner to the government, more closely mirroring criminal cases, by requiring the government to prove that the property owner was involved in criminal activity or knew that it was happening.

AD

The law would also make significant strides on transparency by mandating the creation of a public database of all federal civil forfeitures. The federal government already has an internal database of forfeiture cases, but it is not accessible to the public.

Civil asset forfeiture has become increasingly widespread in the past decade. In 2014, police took more property from people than burglars did.

AD

Reformers say the practice, rooted in drug war tactics from decades ago, is an invitation to abuse and overdue for a change. A 2014 Washington Post investigation found that police had taken billions of dollars in cash from motorists without search warrants, and without charging them with a crime.

In recent years, individual cases of forfeiture abuse have drawn public condemnation. In one recent case, police in Oklahoma took $53,000 in concert earnings belonging to a Burmese Christian rock band and a orphanage in Thailand after stopping the band's tour manager for a broken tail light. In another, the IRS emptied a North Carolina convenience store owner's bank account because they didn't like how he was depositing cash at the bank.

AD

Under asset forfeiture law, police are allowed to seize property that they suspect of being involved with a crime -- say, cash from a drug sale, or houses and vehicles purchased by criminal enterprises. But police never need to prove that such a crime actually took place -- the burden of proof is shifted to the property owners to prove their innocence, turning the longstanding dictum of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head.

AD

The legal process for fighting forfeiture is time-consuming and costly. Unlike criminal cases, in civil forfeiture cases there is no right to an attorney. In many cases, the cost to get the property back exceeds the value of the property to begin with.

Despite the legal deck being stacked against them, defendants who have the resources to fight forfeiture are often successful. The 2014 Post investigation found that the government ended up returning property in more than 40 percent of forfeiture challenges, suggesting that law enforcement is often taking far more latitude with the practice than the law allows.

Darpana Sheth is a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit organization that provides pro-bono legal representation to forfeiture defendants. The DUE PROCESS act "is definitely a sweeping reform that's a positive step in the right direction," she said in an interview. She did note, however, that one big driver of asset forfeiture activity -- the federal equitable sharing program, which makes it easier for local law enforcement to keep proceeds from the property they seize -- would remain in place.

AD

AD

But Sheth also notes that the bill has the support of the Republican and Democratic leadership on the House Judiciary Committee, which must approve it before it can go to a full floor vote. That could give this reform bill a greater chance of passing than other recent forfeiture reform efforts, such as the FAIR Act, which were not sponsored by key committee members.

Passage of the bill is still far from certain, however. Asset forfeiture reform efforts are generally opposed by law enforcement groups, who frame the tactic as an important tool for fighting organized crime.