![]() ![]() Indeed, in the modern political climate where partisans on either side find little to agree about, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party unite in criticism of civil asset forfeiture. 5, 2014), (calling civil forfeiture “even worse” than “a Gwyneth Paltrow euphemism for divorce” and proposing a satirical new procedural drama, “Law and Order: Civil Asset Forfeiture Unit,” to highlight the absurdity of unjust modern civil in rem forfeiture actions against property). Using civil forfeiture, the government can take your home, business, cash, car or other property on the mere suspicion that it is somehow connected to criminal activity-and without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime.”) Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO television broadcast Oct. 2015) (“Civil forfeiture threatens the constitutional rights of all Americans. ![]() for Just., Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture 2 (2d ed. ![]() The abuses of civil asset forfeiture are well-known, well-documented, and well-ridiculed. Civil commitment and civil in rem forfeiture are both quasi-criminal proceedings that run the risk of more than the mere deprivation of money. Due process requires that these serious deprivations occur only after the government satisfies a clear and convincing standard of proof. Texas, and concludes that only the clear and convincing standard is constitutionally acceptable. ![]() Eldridge, as applied to civil commitment in Addington v. This Comment argues that due process demands courts in civil in rem forefeiture proceedings apply a clear and convincing standard of proof. It does so by using the Supreme Court’s framework in Mathews v. Additionally, the similarity between civil commitment proceedings and civil in rem forfeiture proceedings lends a comparison that implies the latter requires a higher standard of proof. Scholars have written much about the constitutionality of civil in rem forfeiture however, missing from the discussion is an examination of the low evidentiary burden the government must hurdle to successfully confiscate private property. Civil libertarians despise an overbearing government stealing private property from otherwise innocent citizens, and Progressives object to the disproportionate impact forfeiture has on low-income and minority communities. In a time of deep political divisions in nearly every area, civil asset forfeiture is the rare topic that draws opprobrium from both the right and the left. Finally, my profound appreciation to Kaylynn Noethlich, Marie-Christine Prudhomme, and Jean Sahuc-without whose enduring love and support nothing would be possible. I extend my gratitude to Professor Stephen Wermiel for his guidance, mentorship, and support during the publicationprocess. I would also like to thank the diligent, hard-working staff of the American University Law Review. Candidate, May 2020, American University Washington College of Law B.A., Politics, History, 2008, Lake Forest College. * Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review, Volume 69 J.D. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |