The cases mentioned show that the current civil forfeiture laws are flawed and allow corruption into the system. Although there are only three cases mention in this paper, there are more that are not reported due to the fact that some individuals just can’t afford the attorney fees or court cost it takes to fight for their property especially if the property is equal to the amount of fees. These individuals will allow their property to be forfeited with no action on their part. The cases mention also prove that forfeiture laws can and are used for a departments own revenue. In each case there were no drugs or paraphernalia that could in any way link the property to drug activity. The reason for the civil forfeiture laws being created was to fight the war on drugs, but with no drug involvement, what war are out law enforcement fighting? Some may say it’s the war against budget cuts for some departments and law makers need to take action. …show more content…
There is no reason for people who have never been charged or convicted of a crime to lose their property in a civil court proceeding. Ending civil forfeiture would not be the end of law enforcement being able to seize suspected property, but it would involve them proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is guilty. This would possibly reduce the number of seizures considerably, and especially those that have no to little evidence against them, giving property owners the due process law offered to them in the Fifth