What the Constitution says about forfeiture of citizens’ property

“Welcome respite in asset seizures,” Dec. 29 editorial.

Your editorial contains a quotation from a dubious but authoritativesounding source— the Institute for Justice— stating, “Using civil forfeiture, the government can take your home, cash, business, car, or other property on the mere suspicion that it is somehowconnected to criminal activity … .”

This assertion is blatantly and demonstrably false. Property can be seized only on the constitutional standard applicable to all arrests and seizures, probable cause, and then the government, under federal law, must submit positive proof of the connection to criminal activity “by a preponderance of the evidence” to permanently confiscate the property, if the owner objects.

Those most likely to welcome a respite in asset seizures will be criminals, who will stand less of a chance of losing the tools of their trade and their ill- got gains. Law enforcement agencies will thereby lose revenue that they will look to taxpayers to make up.

Denver The writer is a former Denver chief deputy district attorney.

BB B

As you describe, civil asset seizures are wrong, and your editorial concludes that our Constitution should hold authorities to a higher standard. The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Seems clear to me, but reckless, greedy lawmakers and complicit judges, delighting in more “modern” laws and “flexibility” for the state, rather than individual rights, are to blame. On the other hand, through election, we get the government we deserve.