What is the definition of forfeiture? According to civil law, the following are the only two types of forfeitures: Unexplained seizure and actual seizure. In a Unexplained seizure, there is no formal act or legal process by which the property was seized. The government can only seize property when a person or entity has been found guilty of, or has concealed or attempted to conceal, a crime. With an actual seizure, a defendant has been found guilty and there is a lawful process in which the property can be taken.
There are four types of criminal forfeitures in civil court. These include: civil court order, federal enforcement agency order, judicial notice of forfeiture, and criminal forfeiture. Civil court order is the most common type of forfeiture case. When there is a civil court order, the government must go through a formal process before the property can be taken.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions that set forth the procedures that must be followed in a forfeiture case. In general, these cases involve property that have been seized by law enforcement agencies. However, many asset forfeiture examples also involve vehicles, houses, computers, jewelry, and other tangible items. The cases may be federal or state, but they all start with the issuance of a federal court order.
Another important element of asset forfeiture laws is called administrative forfeitures. This is the court-ordered seizure of a person's property without the knowledge or consent of that person. Some examples of administrative forfeitures include bank forfeiture, customs levy, and civil money penalties. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that there are certain limits on the extent of administrative forfeitures, including the requirement that the property is effectively connected with the proceeds of the forfeited funds. The limits further indicate what types of property can be seized, including U.S. citizens' homes, vehicles, boats, planes, and other property.
Another important feature of the forfeiture laws is their definition of "tributes". These are typically referred to as "appropriated fruits of the treasury". Some examples include excessive fines and fees paid to the Internal Revenue Service, interest earned on money owed to the government, and any other form of secured debt. The eight amendment, which guarantees the rights of individuals against cruel and unusual punishment, does not distinguish among types of secured debts or their recovery. Thus, the scope of the eight amendment's protections extends to all forms of secured debts.
The tenth amendment establishes the maximum penalties for crimes, and its section includes an exception to the application of the clause of the Fifth Amendment. Timbs are those fines that must be paid before the fugitive from justice can be taken into custody. An important feature of the tenth amendment's timbs provision is the absence of a requirement that the amount of the fine must be determined by a jury. The absence of the jury requirement creates a marked exception to the constitution's strictures on property seizures and gives sweeping powers to law enforcement officials in executing a Forfeiture Rule.
A properly implemented rule of Forfeiture will require that the arresting officer to take into custody, without unnecessary delay, the person believed to be committing the crime, and thereafter place the suspect in restraints. If the property seizure cannot take place without taking the suspect into custody, or if the owner does not present himself before a judge to prevent the seizure, the case will fail. If, however, the owner does present himself before a judge and contest the seizure, the case may succeed. The majority of cases that end in victory for the plaintiff are not a simple case of law enforcement clashing with private rights. Instead, they are an illustration of how the common law system can force a private party to assume a great responsibility in maintaining their rights against the government.
A properly drafted forfeiture action requires that the owner of real property to be informed of his or her rights under the rule of forfeiture. If the owner does not present himself before a judge to prevent the forfeiture, or if he objects to the seizure, then the action is considered to have failed. If, however, the owner does present himself before the court and assert his rights, then the case is not hopeless. The owner can defeat the forfeiture by proving that the property owner was unaware that he had ownership in the property, and that the law enforcement officials abused their power in detaining him.
