I’ve written extensively about an often-overlooked but all-too-common form of tyranny known as civil asset forfeiture. This practice, which allows law enforcement to steal property from citizens regardless of guilt, has faced increased challenges over the past few years. However, in many areas, it is being used to abuse citizens.
The story of a teenager who was sexually abused provides another example showing why civil asset forfeiture must be placed under greater scrutiny.
A 17-year-old girl endured a traumatic experience when she was abused by a sex offender. She later sued the individual, but because of civil asset forfeiture, she might not see a single cent of the settlement.
The sex offender is now serving time in prison for taking indecent liberties with a child, but his victim says she can't move on.
Now 17, the high school senior is waiting for the Mint Hill Police Department to comply with a court order and turn over the $69,130 officers seized from her abuser. The department refuses.
"I've been dealing with this since I was 5 years old and I'm almost 18 and I just want to move on to the next chapter of my life," the teen said while holding her mother's hand. "That money was going to help me do it and without it, it just feels like three steps back. It's honestly so frustrating and difficult."
The MHPD seized the cash during its investigation into the sexual abuse. They found contraband in the suspect’s home, which allowed them to make off with the money.
Records show when MHPD investigated the sex abuse case in July 2019, they found suspected marijuana, drug paraphernalia and cash inside the suspect's home. The victim's family and their attorney said, at the time, an officer assured them the money would be available to one day pursue in a civil suit and in the years after, continued telling them the money remained held in property.
Investigators seized the money and collaborated with a federal agency to apply for asset forfeiture due to illicit drug activity. They never charged the individual with any drug crimes. This action was facilitated by the Equitable Sharing Program.
Civil asset forfeiture, also known as “policing for profit,” allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets believed to be tied to criminal activity. It does not require the owner of the property to be convicted of — or even charged with — a crime. Proponents of the practice contend that it is an important tool for dismantling criminal networks by cutting off their finances. However, it has often been applied in a way that violates people’s rights.
In its current form, civil asset forfeiture promotes an environment where the seizing of assets is prioritized over delivering justice. In this case, the police department’s greed outweighed the need for justice for a teenage sexual abuse victim.
Moreover, it is also worth noting that the Equitable Sharing Program allows local departments to bypass state-level restrictions on the practice. Several states have passed laws reforming the practice, requiring actual convictions before law enforcement can fill its coffers. In North Carolina, the MHPD used Equitable Sharing to access a federal “backdoor” in which it could subvert state protections for civilians.
This story, like many others, has prompted calls for federal action on civil asset forfeiture. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act was introduced in 2023 to overhaul the system in a way that makes it more just and less tyrannical.
Fortunately, at least some members of Congress see the problem in employing such measures. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) declared that he is joining with Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD to reintroduce the FAIR Act as a “comprehensive reform to our nation’s civil asset forfeiture laws,” according to Armstrong’s website. The proposal would “raise the level of proof necessary for the federal government to seize property” and “reforms the IRS structuring statute to protect innocent small business owners,” while increasing “transparency and congressional oversight.”
“Civil asset forfeiture is an important tool, but it needs reform,” Armstrong said. “Innocent until proven guilty has little meaning if law enforcement can seize your assets before you ever appear in a court on a criminal charge. This bipartisan bill takes important steps such as ending equitable sharing and providing additional due process to protect private property from unjust seizure.”
This law would essentially put an end to the Equitable Sharing Program. So far, the bill has not seen much movement in Congress. But if there are more outcries against stories such as this, perhaps our lawmakers will decide to focus less on dress codes and political theater and more on protecting our rights.
