Reforming Michigan's Civil Asset Forfeiture Law

Legislature should follow Minnesota's example

A new Minnesota law on civil asset forfeiture prevents the government from keeping money and property seized without a criminal conviction. 

As noted by Nick Sibilla from the Institute for Justice:

Now the government can only take property if it obtains a criminal conviction or its equivalent, like if a property owner pleads guilty to a crime or becomes an informant. The bill also shifts the burden of proof onto the government, where it rightfully belongs. Previously, if owners wanted to get their property back, they had to prove their property was not the instrument or proceeds of the charged drug crime. In other words, owners had to prove a negative in civil court. Being acquitted of the drug charge in criminal court did not matter to the forfeiture case in civil court.

Civil forfeiture (as opposed to criminal) allows law enforcement agencies to take property from people merely by saying they believe it is connected to illegal activity, forcing the burden of proof to the citizen. Police units often use the practice to expand their budgets.

This has led to rampant abuse in Michigan and nationwide. The federal government seizes more than $4 billion per year while the state has taken at least $250 million since 2001.

There are a few bills that would help curb these abuses, but the state should require a conviction before assets can be forfeited. It is time for Michigan to establish true due process and property rights by following Minnesota’s example.


Related Articles:

Michigan Forfeiture Laws Improving, But State Transparency Still Falls Behind

Michigan Needs To Stop Charging Residents To Get Their Property Back

Now People Won't Have to Pay a Bond to Recover Their Stuff from Police

Michigan Should End Civil Asset Forfeiture

Key Part of Civil Asset Forfeiture Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Michigan Gets D-Minus Grade for Forfeited Property Profit Mongering