Civil Asset Forfeitures: How Law Enforcement Profits from Constitutional Rights
In Las Cruces, New Mexico police officers are taught not to seize jewelry or computers but flat-screen TVs. [1] Whether it be cash or cars, officers are instructed to take assets that are profitable, easy to sell, or of direct use to the police department. These seizures are possible through a process called civil asset forfeiture, where law enforcement is able to seize property on the basis of “probable cause” that the property was involved in criminal activity. [2] Civil asset forfeitures, or in rem forfeiture proceedings, operate against the property itself and not the owner. Owners are considered claimants, and criminal charges or warrants against claimants are not required for law enforcement to seize a claimant’s property. [3] Without this burden on the government, civil asset forfeitures have allowed for the recovery of stolen artwork, enforcement of prohibition, and busting of multiple drug trafficking operations. [4] In addition to civil forfeitures, the two other types of asset forfeitures are criminal and administrative forfeitures. Criminal forfeitures require criminal convictions and are filed against the owner of the property whereas in administrative forfeitures, no convictions are required and the property is forfeited without filing a case.
Read More
Corporate Personhood: A Limit to Corporate Empowerment
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the American public has grown increasingly wary of the Court’s enshrinement of corporate rights. [1] In Citizens United, the Court majority interpreted campaign spending as an exercise of free speech, more specifically political speech, and granted corporations protection from government restrictions on campaign spending. In doing so, the Court seemingly opened the floodgates to an increased volume of corporate rights cases—emerging at a level much higher than previous decades. [2]
Read More
Justice for Sale: Non-Prosecution Agreements as Instruments of Inequality
Recent high-profile sex crime cases such as the Bill Cosby case and Jeffrey Epstein case have catapulted the non-prosecution agreement into the public spotlight. Non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) are legally binding arrangements between government agencies such as the Department of Justice and companies or individuals facing a criminal or civil investigation. Under the agreement, the government refrains from filing further charges as long as the company or individual agrees to its demands, which typically requires that companies/individuals either pay a fine or cooperate with the government. [1] Given that NPAs are typically applied to cases dealing with corporate crime, the use of the non-prosecution agreement in the Cosby and Epstein cases was highly unprecedented.
Read More
