Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act and its impact on law enforcement

This article discusses the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act and its impact on law enforcement. It also highlights the abuse of power by law enforcement officers and the need for reform. The article focuses on the Red Carpet Inn case where the motel was forfeited by the US attorney office without any allegation against the hotel owner to be involved in crimes. The article argues that the civil asset forfeiture can be said to be prosecutorial misconduct and the burden of proof falls completely upon the property owner. The article concludes that the reform act would help the prosecution and punishment of the officers for exceeding their authorities.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
The Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act was passed by the US Congress in the 2000
which sought to limit the US attorney’s limits to procedures for forfeitures of the assets. In 1998
the entire motel named the Red Carpet Inn was forfeited by the US attorney office when they
were informed of drug dealer’s presence in the inn without any allegation against the hotel owner
to be involved in crimes. In my opinion the US attorneys went too far because the owners were
not found guilty of any crime. But it was announced by the local US attorney that the owners by
failing to implement police security recommendations tacitly approved of the drug activities that
were carried on by their guests (Washingtonpost, 2019). This approach to accuse owners of
tacitly supporting criminality is preposterous and goes against constitutional boundaries of the
federal government.
The owner of the motel was not guilty of any crime. The owner was not found to be
committing any crime but was presumed to be guilty by the US attorney for failing to implement
the police security recommendations.
There was no conspiracy going on in the motel. The motel owner was found innocent of
any crime so the US attorney cannot charge the motel owner for any conspiracy or for being an
accessory to the crimes taking place in his property.
The civil assets forfeiture can be said to be prosecutorial misconduct. Under the practice
the burden of proof falls completely upon the property owner even though it is by the
government that the law suit has been instituted (NACDL, 2019). It is seen that law
enforcements can be easily abused. Although the forfeiture law was an effective tool for helping
the police to help organized crime by giving them right to confiscate properties and assets of
suspected drug dealers but the enforcement officials were also given power to use the law far
beyond its original intent. So in my opinion the civil asset forfeiture reform is a good initiative

2CRIMINAL LAW
for stopping the abuse of power by the law enforcement officers. Further having the federal
authorities handle matters relating to forfeiture enables the local authorities to enable
circumventing the forfeiture making state laws either more difficult or less profitable Equitable
Sharing Program (The Heritage Foundation, 2015).
The US attorney in the red carpet case can be held liable for abusing his power. The
confiscation of the motel can be stated as extreme. Although the red carpet inn is an extreme case
yet it cannot be stated as the only case where the owners were harassed by the law officers for
suspicion of drugs and had their properties confiscated. The reform act would help the
prosecution and punishment of the officers for exceeding their authorities.

3CRIMINAL LAW
Reference
Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act 2000
NACDL. (2019). Written Statement on Federal Asset Forfeiture. Retrieved from
https://www.nacdl.org/Advocacy.aspx?id=11571
The Heritage Foundation. (2015). Civil Asset Forfeiture: Good Intentions Gone Awry and the
Need for Reform. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/civil-
asset-forfeiture-good-intentions-gone-awry-and-the-need-reform
Washingtonpost. (2019). House Bill Seeks to Curb Civil Forfeitures. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/june99/forfeit23.htm