Civil asset forfeiture remains a highly controversial practice in the United States, where government agencies, including law enforcement, can seize property from individuals suspected of involvement in illegal activities, even if they are not charged with a crime.
Justice Gorsuch’s Concerns: Justice Neil Gorsuch has been vocal about the due process concerns surrounding civil forfeiture. In a concurring opinion, he questioned how the government could seize property without providing a trial first, a practice that seems inconsistent with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gorsuch criticized the historical justifications used to support civil forfeiture, suggesting that these justifications were limited to specific contexts like admiralty and customs law and do not apply broadly Reason.com
A small jewelry business owned by Henry and Minh Cheng, a husband-and-wife team, finds itself in a legal battle after $43,000 sent to them via FedEx was seized by police. The incident has sparked outrage and raised questions about the fairness and legality of civil forfeiture laws.
The trouble began when the Chengs received a package of cash from a client in Virginia as payment for gold chains. However, before the money could reach them, authorities in Indiana intercepted the shipment at a FedEx facility. According to the lawsuit filed by the Chengs, the police, acting on suspicions often tied to such cash shipments, decided to seize the money. Despite claims from the Marion County prosecutor’s office that such shipments are typically linked to illegal activities, no actual evidence of wrongdoing was found in the package. Even drug-sniffing dogs, brought in by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, reportedly detected the smell of narcotics, but nothing illegal was discovered.
Now, more than four months have passed, and the Chengs have not been charged with any crime related to the seized cash. Frustrated and feeling unjustly targeted, the couple is working with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit organization advocating for civil liberties, to sue the state of Indiana. The lawsuit alleges a pattern of unlawful seizures at the FedEx depot in Indianapolis, indicating that this may not be an isolated incident.
Police seek rightful owners of allegedly stolen jewelry https://t.co/kaN1NpebRw
— CTV News Barrie (@CTVBarrieNews) August 24, 2024
The case revolves around the controversial practice of civil forfeiture, which permits law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity without necessarily charging the owner with a crime. Critics argue that this practice provides police and prosecutors with a financial incentive to seize assets, as the proceeds often benefit their departments. According to the Institute for Justice, this has led to a surge in forfeiture cases nationwide, with law enforcement agencies often prioritizing profit over justice.
Under Indiana law, the seized funds can be redirected into state law enforcement budgets, the general fund, and other public sectors, further complicating the notion of fair enforcement. The Chengs’ lawyers have condemned the seizure as blatant profiteering, accusing the state of exploiting its powers to generate revenue rather than uphold the law.
A California couple is locked in a legal fight with Indiana authorities after $42,000 was seized during a cash transaction routed through FedEx. The state claims the money is tied to criminal activity, yet fails to specify a crime or evidence.
— The America One News (@am1_news) August 12, 2024
Reflecting on the ordeal, Henry Cheng expressed his dismay: “I think it’s unfair, and it just shouldn’t happen in America.” His statement captures the broader sentiment of many who believe that civil forfeiture practices need significant reform to protect innocent citizens from unjust seizures.
Key Points:
- Seized Cash Controversy: A small business owned by Henry and Minh Cheng had $43,000 seized by Indiana police, sparking a legal battle.
- Lack of Evidence: Despite police suspicions and a drug-sniffing dog alert, no illegal activity was found, and the Chengs were not charged with a crime.
- Civil Forfeiture Laws: The case highlights the controversial use of civil forfeiture, which allows authorities to seize assets without charging individuals.
- Allegations of Profiteering: The Chengs, with help from the Institute for Justice, allege the seizure is part of a broader pattern of profit-driven actions by law enforcement.
- Call for Reform: The incident has fueled calls for reform of civil forfeiture laws to prevent unjust property seizures and ensure fairness in law enforcement.
Fallon Jacobson – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News
