NCJ Number
175512
Date Published
1998
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Civil asset forfeiture and injunctive relief are examined with respect to their use and the constitutional challenges experienced by each of these civil remedies used by criminal justice officials to prevent or punish criminal behavior.
Abstract
Civil forfeiture is authorized in more than 140 Federal laws and in all States. It is easy to use and offers distinct procedural advantages to the seizing authorities. Injunctions have been obtained against labor picketing, anti-abortion protects, gang activity, and the operation of drug and gambling rings. The main legal challenges to both of these types of civil remedies have involved procedural and substantive constitutional claims. The main constitutional issues raised by anti-gang injunctions and other forms of injunctive relief are the proper scope of the orders entered and the procedures used to protect the rights of the enjoined parties. United States Supreme Court decisions have resulted in some constitutional boundaries that have limited the application of the two civil remedies. Thus, the seizure of valuable property only incidentally or haphazardly associated with criminal activity may represent the equivalent of an excessive fine; confiscating real property such as a home requires prior notice and a pre-seizure chance to be heard. Injunctive relief requires fair notice of what represents proscribed conduct and the appropriate tailoring of injunctive decrees. Nevertheless, the court has confirmed a generally permissive approach to new uses of civil remedies to control crime. As a result, officials have enormous discretion to use civil remedies creatively and expansively. However, the proliferation of civil remedies means that the challenge to maintain principles of fairness and sensitivity continues. 38 references (Author abstract modified)