The only prerequisite needed by the government to seize your property or financial assets is the mere suspicion of a crime - no actual law has to be broken, and no charge needs to be brought - simply a suspicion and the civil asset forteiture law, The Blaze reminded us on Tuesday.
If the IRS or Department of Justice suspected someone to be involved in criminal activities and decides to seize assets under the civil asset forfeiture law, it could take months or even years of legal proceedings to clear an innocent person of wrongdoing and return their confiscated business, property or finances.
While the law was originally established to seize assets from money launderers and drug dealers, it's not hard to see how such unbridled power could be abused, and some claim the practice has now evolved into what is referred to as "policing for profit."
As the Institute for Justice wrote in a 2010 report, the law effectively makes people "guilty until proven innocent."
There are, however, efforts underway to reform the law.
Both Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have introduced legislation aimed at establishing clearer and more protective guidelines.
Walberg introduced H.R. 5212: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014 back in July, where it currently resides before the House Judiciary Committee. It was referred last week to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. If passed, it would require the government to "show proof that an individual was involved in criminal wrongdoing before it can seize property," said The Blaze.
"This has a tremendous negative impact on our freedoms and the ability to carry on our government the way it's been established according to the Constitution," Walberg told The Blaze. "That's not what government should be, in the place of being a fearmonger, a producer of fear in the peoples' lives and ultimately, using their power to extract resources for their own benefit."
GovTrack currently gives the bill a 14 percent chance of getting past committee and only a 3 percent chance of being enacted.
Paul also introduced a bill in July to address the issue of civil asset forfeiture sans due process: S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act.
Paul's bill would also work to fix the law and protect the rights of property owners by "requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property," reported the Washington Post.
Just as importantly, Paul's bill would also require states to "abide by state law when forfeiting seized property."
The Washington Post details why this is important:
"Currently, a number of state legislatures across the country have passed reform bills to rein in forfeiture abuses. The problem is that the federal government has a program known as "adoption" or "equitable sharing." Under the program, a local police agency need only call up the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or similar federal agency. That agency then "federalizes" the investigation, making it subject to federal law. The federal agency then initiates forfeiture proceedings under the laxer federal guidelines for forfeiture. The feds take a cut and then return the rest - as much as 80 percent - back to the local agency. This trick thwarts the intent of state legislature that have attempted to make civil forfeiture more fair when it comes to burden of proof, protections for innocent property owners and eliminating the perverse incentive of allowing forfeiture proceeds to go to the same police agency that made the seizure."
