Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

Imagine this: you are on your way to visit your family, with cash in hand for a special gift or overdue bills. Suddenly, you are pulled over for a minor traffic issue. The police officer finds your cash and seizes it, claiming it might be linked to a crime. You are not charged with anything, yet your money is gone, and the burden is on you to prove that you have done nothing wrong. Sounds unreal, doesn’t it? Sorrowfully, this is the grim reality of civil forfeiture.

AI Prompt - Officer confiscating money bag
freepik__candid-image-photography-natural-textures-highly-r__3625.png (3.47 MiB) Viewed 1348 times

What Is Civil Forfeiture?
Civil forfeiture allows authorities to seize property they suspect to be connected to illegal activity. No conviction or even criminal charges are required. In essence, the property itself is treated as the “accused,” which is why court cases can have bizarre names like United States v. $31,000 in U.S. Currency. It flips the general principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. [1] [2]

Why Is Civil Forfeiture a Problem?
This is a system with significant flaws. First, it places the burden of proof on innocent people, who must navigate costly and complex legal battles to recover their assets. What is worse is that the law enforcement agencies often get to keep the proceeds, creating a financial incentive to seize as much as possible. Hence, it is called “policing for profit." [3]

According to a report in 2014, U.S. police seized more through civil forfeiture than burglars stole that year, making this legal theft. This profit-driven approach has led to numerous abuses, such as targeting travellers with large amounts of cash or small business owners making frequent bank deposits. [4]

Libertarian Perspective: Why It Matters?
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which demands that force be used only to protect against aggression, is highly valued by libertarians. Civil forfeiture violates this principle by allowing the state to unduly confiscate assets.

Additionally, this unchecked power distorts the purpose of law enforcement, turning police into revenue-generating entities as they use these forfeitures for their own benefit. [5]

Real-Life Horror Stories
A number of terrible examples can be found of how this law has been abused.

In Philadelphia, a grandmother almost lost her house and car (she had to go to the Supreme Court to save her property) because her son sold less than $200 worth of marijuana. [6]

Then there are small business owners like Lyndon McLellan. He had $107,000 seized simply because his deposits seemed suspicious. Although he was not charged with any crime, he had to fight back to get back his money, draining his savings. [7]

A Global Problem
Civil forfeiture is not limited to the US.

• Canada: Provincial authorities can seize property (with a court order) linked to crime without a conviction. [8]

• Europe: Non-conviction-based confiscation of property is practiced, not leaving adequate levels of safeguards, transparency, or accountability. [9]

Fighting Back
Reform against this law is possible, thankfully.

Groups like the Institute for Justice are pushing for legislative changes, with numerous wins in cases of unjust asset forfeiture. Some U.S. states now require a criminal conviction before forfeiture with the aim to increase transparency and eliminate profit motives. [10] [11]

But that is not enough. Real justice will be served when the system is replaced with one that respects due process and individual rights.

Why Is It Urgent?
Civil forfeiture is not simply a loophole in the legal system. It is a direct threat to liberty. It punishes the innocent and erodes trust in the justice system by undermining the very principles of fairness. As libertarians, we need to support policies that protect property rights.

Let’s stand firm: liberty, above all else. Are you in?


References
1. United States of America v. $31,000.00 in U.S. Currency et al, No. 1:2016cv01581
2. Civil asset forfeiture: unpopular and unjust
3. Policing for profit
4. Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
5. Asset Forfeiture Abuse
6. Grandmother Who Lost Her Home Because Her Son Sold Marijuana Wins Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case
7. Lyndon McLellan Finally Beats the IRS
8. What is civil forfeiture in Canada?
9. Confiscating Illegal Assets in Europe: A Harmonised Approach
10. Ending civil forfeiture cases
11. Civil Forfeiture Reforms on the State Level

[LuckyR]

The thing is, when a banger-type carrying $10,000 cash has it confiscated, it probably is putting (an admittedly small) dent in wrongdoing. OTOH when strapped police departments get to keep the money, it incentivises them to rob citizens. There has to be a middle ground.

Oh, and don't carry cash, its a loser's game.

[Sushan]

The thing is, when a banger-type carrying $10,000 cash has it confiscated, it probably is putting (an admittedly small) dent in wrongdoing. OTOH when strapped police departments get to keep the money, it incentivises them to rob citizens. There has to be a middle ground.

Oh, and don't carry cash, its a loser's game.

I do agree with your first point that some criminals who are carrying large amounts of cash may lose illicit money to civil Forfeiture, however this will indeed help deter crime.

But the negative side is larger and worrying, in my opinion.

Unfortunately there has been a lot of abuse of this law, and that's largely due to the profit driven incentive behind it. The agencies seize the funds and then they use them themselves, purchasing personal luxuries or non-essential items that do not go back into real crime prevention efforts. For example, funds have been spent on exotic purchases such as sports cars, home gym equipment and engraved handguns, reports have noted. Nowhere was this more evident than in Georgia, where over $5.3 million was illegally retained by officials, and partially spent for their benefit without legislative oversight.

And civil forfeiture laws circumvent the requirement of a criminal conviction. People have to spend more than the value of the seized property on legal battles to recover their assets even though they have not been charged with a crime.

Prior to property being seized, there must be a criminal conviction or at least substantiated proof of guilt in order to lessen these abuses. This modification would focus actual criminal activity while bringing the practice into compliance with due process and fairness principles.

About what you said about not carrying a lot of cash: Although it may seem like common sense, people shouldn't have to restrict or defend their financial decisions in a democracy because they fear unfair government action. Some people carry cash because they need it (for businesses, for example) or because they enjoy it, and nobody should have to worry about losing their belongings without good reason.

In my opinion, civil forfeiture rules need to be changed in order to preserve individual liberties and rebuild public confidence in police enforcement.

What do you say?

[LuckyR]

As stated, I support reform of the law, as written. I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

[Sushan]

As stated, I support reform of the law, as written. I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

Thank you for supporting the reform of laws related to Civil Forfeiture.

Maybe the focus was more on carrying money freely because of the example I took and the image I used. However, this law is applied to any sort of belongings that have a liquidity, and the police can even sell property and convert that into money.

Yes, your advice is practical and useful. In today's digital world, carrying cash can be a risky choice. However, not everyone in the world is fully 'digitalized,' and some people prefer to carry cash based on their individual needs or preferences. While it’s true that carrying cash makes it easier to lose, people should not have to fear the police confiscating their money. Losing cash to actual theft is bad enough without adding the risk of losing it through law enforcement actions.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

According to a report in 2014, U.S. police seized more through civil forfeiture than burglars stole that year, making this legal theft.

A sad but apt point.

police-rob-people-more-than-criminals.jpg (658.95 KiB) Viewed 1240 times

the-police-are-the-biggest-armed-gang-in-america.jpg (45.4 KiB) Viewed 1240 times

[Sushan]

According to a report in 2014, U.S. police seized more through civil forfeiture than burglars stole that year, making this legal theft.

A sad but apt point.





police-rob-people-more-than-criminals.jpg





the-police-are-the-biggest-armed-gang-in-america.jpg

Yes. Where can people go and seek help from when both the law and the criminals are the same. The police steals while they punish the so called robbers. Hilarious, yet dangerous and frustrating.

[Pattern-chaser]

I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

[Sushan]

I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

Well, if the danger comes from the thieves, yes, there is no need to reform the law, but strengthen what is already there and also make necessary amendments to the system to ensure the public safety. But if it the the very system that you expect protection from is stealing from you, or confiscating what you earned, then where can we turn or what can we do rather than expecting the law to be reformed.

[LuckyR]

I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

Oh it's not too dangerous for me to carry cash (I've never lost a single dollar to a robber or a police officer), but I don't carry more cash than I care about losing.

[Sushan]

I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

Oh it's not too dangerous for me to carry cash (I've never lost a single dollar to a robber or a police officer), but I don't carry more cash than I care about losing.

It’s an interesting perspective to say it’s ‘not too dangerous’ to carry cash, but I wonder how that lines up with the idea of losing ‘only what you don’t mind losing.’ That’s a fair point about personal risk tolerance, but I think the issue goes beyond individual precautions. The idea that someone should only carry what they’re okay with losing almost assumes an expectation of loss—a mindset that feels incompatible with living in a society where people’s rights should be respected.

[LuckyR]

I also stand by my observation that carrying more cash than you don't mind losing is somewhere between reckless and stupid.

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

Oh it's not too dangerous for me to carry cash (I've never lost a single dollar to a robber or a police officer), but I don't carry more cash than I care about losing.

It’s an interesting perspective to say it’s ‘not too dangerous’ to carry cash, but I wonder how that lines up with the idea of losing ‘only what you don’t mind losing.’ That’s a fair point about personal risk tolerance, but I think the issue goes beyond individual precautions. The idea that someone should only carry what they’re okay with losing almost assumes an expectation of loss—a mindset that feels incompatible with living in a society where people’s rights should be respected.

No, not really. If I tell you there is a 0.001% chance that every time when you turn on the lights in your home you'll be electrocuted, you'd move out immediately and call an electrician. Why? Not because of "an expectation of loss" of life, statistically. Rather because the amount of potential loss (as opposed to the chance of loss).

If I walk around with $100 cash in my pocket, the police officer thing is meaningless to me, as is the downside of a robber asking for my cash. It doesn't matter if my neighborhood is statistically safe or dangerous. If I walk around with $10,000 in cash, in my opinion, I'm part reckless and part stupid. Mainly because there are numerous, numerous alternatives to carrying cash.

[Melissa Jane]

It's very sad that the police is legally robbing innocent civilians. The police also strategically confiscate items from those who may be too poor to sue them, or where the legal expenses would exceed the amount confiscated.

[Sushan]

In a country/world where it is too dangerous to carry cash, I think law reform might be the least of our/your worries?

Oh it's not too dangerous for me to carry cash (I've never lost a single dollar to a robber or a police officer), but I don't carry more cash than I care about losing.

It’s an interesting perspective to say it’s ‘not too dangerous’ to carry cash, but I wonder how that lines up with the idea of losing ‘only what you don’t mind losing.’ That’s a fair point about personal risk tolerance, but I think the issue goes beyond individual precautions. The idea that someone should only carry what they’re okay with losing almost assumes an expectation of loss—a mindset that feels incompatible with living in a society where people’s rights should be respected.

No, not really. If I tell you there is a 0.001% chance that every time when you turn on the lights in your home you'll be electrocuted, you'd move out immediately and call an electrician. Why? Not because of "an expectation of loss" of life, statistically. Rather because the amount of potential loss (as opposed to the chance of loss).

If I walk around with $100 cash in my pocket, the police officer thing is meaningless to me, as is the downside of a robber asking for my cash. It doesn't matter if my neighborhood is statistically safe or dangerous. If I walk around with $10,000 in cash, in my opinion, I'm part reckless and part stupid. Mainly because there are numerous, numerous alternatives to carrying cash.

Though I believe it oversimplifies the problem, your comparison is intriguing. It depends on the situation whether or not to act against even a 0.001% possibility of loss. For instance, despite the statistical risk of accidents, individuals drive cars on a daily basis because practicality and necessity outweigh the comparatively low chance of injury.

The same is true for many people who carry cash for specific reasons and don't expect to lose it. While it isn't always accurate, your statement about alternative methods to carrying cash is correct in a lot of circumstances. Sometimes carrying cash is necessary (for example, for certain transactions, travel, or emergencies), and it shouldn't be seen as careless or stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense to address the systemic issues that originally make carrying cash risky rather than criticising individuals for doing so?

[Sushan]

It's very sad that the police is legally robbing innocent civilians. The police also strategically confiscate items from those who may be too poor to sue them, or where the legal expenses would exceed the amount confiscated.

What you are suggesting can be (I think it is) a practice used by the police to get back to who they don't like or want to teach a lesson, and that makes this legal robbery much more dangerous and unethical. A reform is necessary indeed, and it won't come to practice easily or by its own.