Rand Paul Introduces Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill

Rand Paul introduced a landmark bill last Friday that makes several significant changes to federal asset forfeiture law. It aims to remove the profit incentive by depositing sales proceeds in the Treasury's General Fund instead of giving it directly to the seizing agency.  The government must also show a substantial connection between the property owner and the alleged crime, that the owner "intentionally used the property in connection with the offense" or "knowingly consented or was will-fully blind to the use of the property by another in connection with the offense" before forfeiting property.

It also raises the standard of proof for federal prosecutors to meet before forfeiting property. The bill raises the federal court's standard of proof to "clear and convincing evidence", which makes it higher than many states. Radley Balko reports that the bill also requires states to "abide by state law" when they forfeit property, but that language is not in the current bill so it is hard to know what means exactly and if it applies to both financial and procedural aspects of state forfeiture law.

This is pretty big. Asset forfeiture is a big money maker for actors at all levels of government. The federal asset forfeiture fund had more than $2 billion in net deposits in 2013. The Department of Justice made more than $656 million in equitable sharing payments to law enforcement agencies in the 50 states. Law enforcement in New York and California have received more than $1.2 billion through the program between 2000 and 2013.This is not necessarily a bill that will be greeted with open arms by the law enforcement community.

 These changes have been a long time coming. Henry Hyde proposed raising the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence almost 20 years ago. His reform efforts were stymied and his bill, passed as the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in 2000, settled for the lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence, which it stands at today. And while it would curb the problems associated with federal adoption, it would not address the myriad problems of state forfeiture laws. This bill represents a lot of progress though and Senator Paul should be commended for taking up the issue.