Drug arrests and civil forfeiture: A violation of rights

In March, a Philadelphia man answered his door to find law enforcement holding a warrant for the arrest of his 22-year-old son. According to WPTZ.com, the young man was charged with selling $40 worth of heroin out of his parents’ home. Six weeks later, authorities returned and seized the couple’s home, leaving them and their children out on the street. According to law enforcement, the home is part of a pending investigation – the young man has not been convicted of the crime.

Seizing property is a common approach taken by federal and local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota and across the nation as a deterrent against drug crimes. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University points out, however, that while law enforcement agencies claim this policy enables them to hit large drug operations where it is most likely to hurt, there are concerns that law enforcement is taking it too far.

Seizure and minor crimes

Evidence suggests that law enforcement regularly use the policy to take money or assets when someone is accused of committing even a minor crime, such as with the Philadelphia family. The Minnesota state auditor notes that the state collected $30 million in such assets in 2010. Furthermore, a recent report in The Washington Post notes that since Sept. 11, 2001, cash seizures through civil forfeiture that lacked an indictment or a warrant have totaled more than $2.5 billion nationwide.

Claims have been made that law enforcement is using the policy as a moneymaker for their departments and municipalities. Indeed, internet chats show that police often compete with each other to see who can seize the most cash and valuables from drivers on the road who are charged with crimes such as possession of marijuana, not from people who are suspected of running a drug operation.

Damaging effects

As these agencies gain, the practice can have a devastating effect on property owners and their families. These effects include the following:

  • Civil forfeiture is often viewed as a violation of rights; people must prove their innocence to regain their property rather than the state having to prove their guilt.
  • People who are not even linked to the crime can suffer through losing their homes, their money and other valuable items.
  • When people’s assets are seized publicly, it can damage their reputation and their relationships.
  • Victims of forfeiture often have to spend additional funds in lawsuits to have their property returned to them.

The Washington Post also points out that property is often taken unnecessarily, as the government returned assets in nearly half of all situations in which the property owner challenged the seizure.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.