Restoring Civility - The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000: Baby Steps towards a More Civilized Civil Forfeiture System
![handle is hein.journals/indilr35 and id is 1059 raw text is: RESTORING CIVILITY-THE CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
REFORM ACT OF 2000: BABY STEPS TOWARDS
A MORE CIVILIZED CIVIL FORFEITURE SYSTEM
BARCLAY THOMAS JOHNSON*
INTRODUCTION
Starting in 1970, the United States employed civil forfeiture, a civil in rem
proceeding, to combat the nation's drug problems by striking at the proceeds or
instrumentalities of narcotics crimes. However, the government's ability, via the
civil forfeiture statutes, to seize property on mere probable cause and, for two
decades, without notice, provoked many concerns.' Charlotte Juide described her
experience with the United States' civil forfeiture laws as:
On Friday morning, April 27, 1990 ... I was woken up by men
shouting inside my apartment. I did not give anyone permission to enter
my apartment before these people came in.
At least one man came into my room while I was in bed. He had a
gun drawn which he pointed directly at my head. He demanded that I get
out of bed and pack up some things and get out of the apartment
immediately. I was afraid. I had to go to the bathroom and when I asked
the man if I could go to the bathroom, he first went into my bathroom
and looked around. He said he was looking for weapons. He came out
and said I could use the bathroom now, but he would not let me shut the
door. He stayed just outside the bathroom door while I used the toilet.
I think he was watching me the whole time I was on the toilet.'
Ms. Juide, a public housing tenant, further noted:
Before my apartment was entered by force on the morning of April 27,
1990, I was not notified that the government was planning to seize my
apartment. I was not told that any complaint for forfeiture had been filed
against my apartment or that I could demand a hearing before the U.S.
Marshalls and [that] local police could forcibly come into my apartment
* J.D. Candidate, 2002, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis; M.A., 1997,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst; B.A., 1994, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana. I
benefited from the thoughts and comments of Professor Florence Wagnan Roisman. Any errors
and omissions in the final product remain my own.
i. Another problem, not explicitly considered here, is the right to counsel. Although the
court in United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 1996), held that there was no right to
effective assistance of counsel in civil forfeiture proceedings, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
properly recognizes that significant property interests are involved in forfeiture proceedings against
an individual's primary residence and provides for the appointment of counsel from the Legal
Services Corporation. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Pub L. No. 106-185, § (b), 114
Stat. 202, 205 (2000) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)).
2. Affidavit of Charlotte Juide, May 11, 1990, I 6, 7.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/indilr35&div=53&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most