Civil asset forfeiture, also known as “Policing for Profit,” is a practice that allows members of law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it has been used to commit a crime. Without due process, police officers can take homes, vehicles, cash, and other property based on mere suspicion. The person who owns said property does not have to be convicted or even charged with a crime for law enforcement to steal their belongings. To make things even worse, retrieving one’s property can be a long and costly process that typically requires the services of a lawyer.

At this moment, there are about 37 states that have passed legislation reforming their forfeiture laws since 2014, which sets a precedent for federal action. The reforms vary in scope and impact, but they underscore a recognition that these laws need changing.

This fall, members of Congress will likely be given an opportunity to pass the bipartisan Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act, known as the Fair Act. This bill would raise the standard for seizing property on the federal level, protecting more Americans from unjust seizures.

The Supreme Court is also expected to weigh in. It is reviewing two civil asset forfeiture cases whose outcome could significantly reshape the legal landscape surrounding the practice. Depending on how the court rules, it could strengthen property and due process rights.

Culley v. Marshall involves two cases in Alabama in which law enforcement seized vehicles under civil asset forfeiture laws.

In February 2019, police in Satsuma, Alabama, pulled over Halima Culley's son and arrested him for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. They seized the car, which belonged to Culley, and tried to keep it under Alabama's civil forfeiture law. Although Culley ultimately got her car back as an "innocent owner," that process took 20 months.

That same month, a friend borrowed Lena Sutton's car. He was pulled over in Leesburg, Alabama, and arrested for methamphetamine possession. Like Culley, Sutton successfully invoked the "innocent owner" defense to get her car back after police seized it. But that did not happen for over a year. In the meantime, her lawyer told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, "she missed medical appointments, she wasn't able to keep a job, she wasn't able to pay a cell phone bill, and as a result" she "was not in a position to be able to communicate about the forfeiture proceedings."

In separate class-action lawsuits, Culley and Sutton unsuccessfully argued that they and similarly situated property owners have a due process right to a prompt post-seizure hearing aimed at determining whether they can keep their cars while a forfeiture case is pending. The issue for the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall is which standard to apply in deciding that question. During oral arguments in the case, several justices showed a heartening awareness of the injustices inflicted by civil asset forfeiture, a system of legalized larceny that allows law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets by confiscating allegedly crime-tainted property.

The financial impact of civil asset forfeiture is devastating for the victims and quite lucrative for the state. Since 2000, states and the federal government used the practice to rake in at least $68.8 billion. In many states, law enforcement agencies keep the entirety of the stolen assets, which creates a clear incentive for officers to concoct reasons to take people’s property.

Reforming civil asset forfeiture is not only about changing the laws, it’s a critical step toward realigning law enforcement with its actual role: Protecting our rights. These reformations are intended to ensure that property rights and Fourth Amendment rights are being safeguarded. Hopefully, change will come soon.