The latest New Yorker magazine includes an article on civil forfeiture. Back in 1995 I took a class at Harvard Law School called “Advanced Criminal Procedure.” An example civil forfeiture case that I can remember involved a man who drove his wife’s car to a shady part of town looking for a prostitute. The police didn’t have enough evidence for a successful criminal prosecution but they took the wife’s car via civil forfeiture, arguing that the car was involved in prostitution. The wife appealed, pointing out that she certainly did not authorize the use of her car for such a purpose, but lost. The appeals court ruled that the government had the right to take her car.
Now that adult children are moving in with parents in increasing numbers, the case of the elderly Philadelphia couple whose 31-year-old son made three $20 marijuana deals from the front porch should be cautionary. I would rate this as another argument in favor of renting rather than owning a home (see previous posting on the subject). An owned house is a irresistible target for a variety of predators, including the government (gradual via property tax) and the police (sudden via civil forfeiture). Insurance cannot protect against these kinds of risks.
If Mary and Leon Adams had purchased a basket of stocks in 1966 instead of the house they would be a lot better off today. A jealous neighbor cannot plant a marijuana seed in a Vanguard portfolio and then call 911. A wastrel child cannot deal drugs while standing on top of a record in a Fidelity Investments relational database management system.
Maybe the risks are roughly equal. That same wayward child who might deal drugs from the front porch could certainly steal your Fidelity password, cash out, and fly to Belize. The government can certainly raise capital gains tax rates and steal more of your stock appreciation. Or Fidelity, Vanguard, or another of their ilk could collapse. This last one, collapse, worries me – but it worries me about as much as a house fire (devastating but fairly unlikely).
One thing’s for sure, though – woe be unto you if the government gets you in its sights, whether it’s in the context of civil forfeiture or anything else. Another article, this one in this week’s New York Times magazine, describes such a situation in vivid detail as it outlines our government’s harassment of Laura Poitras.
My favorite thing when reading that article was the actual names of the suits.
“State of Texas vs. 3700 dollars”
“United States vs. Assorted Belongings of so-and-so”
“State of New York vs. A 1993 Honda Accord”
I wonder if there’s any publicly mine-able data on civil forfeiture. You could make a Google map showing where it is safe to live and drive through.
I also just finished reading the same article and thought it was outrageous. As Longleaf and Joshua pointed out police have seized property besides house: cash, electronics, jewelry (including of a dead wife), grocery shops, lots of cars including (41?) cars at gunpoint in a Die Hard sort of raid on an art gallery party because they served cocktails, and almost seized children into custody on the side of a road, but apparently traded them for cash. In the last case they went to get one car which was parked miles away in a friend’s driveway. This is not an argument against ownership, it’s an argument against letting police become profit seeking pirates and highway robbers (literally in the Tenaha case apparently).
@Joshua – the article made pretty clear that the information was difficult to find – these occurred particularly to people without sufficient wherewithal to fight back legally, so they hardly came forward. On the other hand the article mentioned one state only without such laws (NC I think, where you first need a conviction) and also that such abuses did not seem to occur where there was a non-discretionary independent fund for seized property such that proceeds go to Education or something (Missouri, Vt, ND…)
Have no idea what would be a good strategy to avoid such abuse since these are civil cases against you property not criminal case against you. On the other hand here’s a good long explanation for why you don’t talk to police from a professor/defense attorney. As a currently serving grand juror – (1/2 year!), it all seems like good advice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I couldn’t read the whole article, but for the semi-literate out there, there is this horrifying video about the State of MA vs. Caswell motel. The good news is, the motel won a complete victory early this year, but it’s still a frightening story.