The War on Drugs has resulted in some of the most extensive changes in criminal justice policy since the due process revolution of the 1960s. Asset forfeiture has been used as a criminal sanction but has been camouflaged as a civil procedure, thus in effect limiting the due process rights of those accused. The state has extended its control over citizens and has simultaneously weakened the rights of individuals to protect themselves against state intrusion. The potential for excess with a civil asset forfeiture policy absent adequate due process protections render this policy unacceptable in a society based on the rule of law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin v. United States, 113 St. Ct. 2801 (1973).
2.
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 94 S.Ct. 2080 (1974).
3.
Department of Justice
. 1990. Annual Report of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program. Washington, DC: Office of the U.S. Attorney General.
4.
Edwards, E. E.
1994. “Review of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program” (Testimony before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., June 22, 1993). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
Farr, Kathryn Ann
. 1995. “Fetal Abuse and the Criminalization of Behavior During Pregnancy.”Crime & Delinquency41:235-245.
6.
Flanagan, Timothy J.
and Kathleen Maguire, eds. 1992. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
7.
Giffuni, Matthew Q.1995. “Civil Forfeiture and the Excessive Fines Clause Following Austin v. United States.”Criminal Law Bulletin31:502-533.
8.
Gordon, Diana R.
1994. The Return of the Dangerous Classes: Drug Prohibition and Policy Politics. New York: Norton.
9.
Holden, Richard N.1993. “Police and the Profit-Motive: A New Look at Asset Forfeiture.”ACJS Today12:1, 3, 24-25.
10.
Levi, Michael
and Lisa Osofsky. 1995. Investigating, Seizing and Confiscating the Proceeds of Crime. London: Home Office Police Department, Police Research Group.
11.
Maguire, Kathleen
and Ann C. Pastore, eds. 1994. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
12.
Maguire, Kathleen
and Ann C. Pastore, eds. 1995. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
13.
Miller, J. Mitchell
and Lance H. Selva. 1994. “Drug Enforcement's Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs.”Justice Quarterly11:313-335.
14.
Nadelmann, Ethan A.
1993. Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
15.
Nelson, William P.1992. “Should the Ranch Go Free Because the Constable Blundered? Gaining Compliance With Search and Seizure Standards in the Age of Asset Forfeiture.”California Law Review80:1309-1359.
16.
Stahl, Marc B.1992. “Asset Forfeiture, Burdens of Proof and the War on Drugs.”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology83:274-337.
17.
United States v. Halper, 109 S.Ct. 1982 (1989).
18.
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al., 114 S.Ct. 492 (1993).
19.
Warchol, Gregory
and Dennis M. Payne. 1995. “Exploring the Impact of Federal Asset Forfeiture: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November.
20.
Wilson, Derrick
. 1991-1992. “Drug Asset Forfeiture: In the War on Drugs, Is the Innocent Spouse the Loser?”Journal of Family Law30:135-153.
21.
Yoskowitz, Jack
. 1992. “The War on the Poor: Civil Forfeiture of Public Housing.”Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems25:567-600.
