The Long Term Impact of CAFRA: Expanding Access to Counsel and Encouraging Greater Use of Criminal Forfeiture

Abstract

School I. Background The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (OCAFRAO or OReform ActO) represents the culmination of a seven year congressional effort to reform civil forfeiture laws and to strike a much needed balance between achieving legitimate law enforcement goals and protecting the legal rights of innocent property owners. Under mounting pressure from such diverse groups as the National Rife Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union, and spurred by nationally publicized instances of forfeiture abuse, Congress enacted major changes to civil forfeiture practices that, according to some critics, gave law enforcement agencies a Olicense to steal.O On April 25, 2000, President Clinton signed the Reform Act into law and it became effective on August 23, 2000. Though there are many federal forfeiture statutes, public outcry for reform has revolved primarily around the use of civil forfeiture as a weapon in the war against drugs. Civil forfeiture practices drew sharp criticism because they did not contain basic safeguards required in criminal cases, thereby placing ordinary citizens at substantial risk for the loss of their property without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Federal courts commented on the lack of adequate safeguards. For example, in United States v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., a case challenging the ex parte seizure of business assets, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated: O[W]e continue to be enormously troubled by the governmentOs increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.O Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the primary sponsor of CAFRA, referred to civil forfeiture laws as OKafkaesque,O and condemned its widespread use against innocent citizens: