Skip to main content

Penn Law panel discusses civil forfeiture

October 08, 2014

On October 6, a Penn Law panel discussed the extensive use of civil forfeiture in Philadelphia.
On October 6, a Penn Law panel discussed the extensive use of civil forfeiture in Philadelphia.
On October 6, Penn Law hosted a panel discussion as part of the “Anatomy of a Public Interest Lawsuit” series on the use of civil forfeiture in Philadelphia and the development of the class action lawsuit, Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia, challenging it.

By Kathy Zhang C’17

Philadelphia recently made headlines for its civil forfeiture “machine,” which is currently being challenged by the federal class action lawsuit Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia. On October 6, Penn Law hosted a panel discussion as part of the “Anatomy of a Public Interest Lawsuit” series on the extent of civil forfeiture in Philadelphia and the development of the class action lawsuit against it.

Presented by the Gittis Center for Clinical Legal Studies, the Toll Public Interest Center, and the American Constitution Society, the discussion covered the abuses of civil forfeiture laws in Philadelphia and the federal class action lawsuit seeking to redress them. The panelists included Isaiah Thompson, a journalist for AxisPhilly; Darpana Steth, an attorney at the Institute for Justice (the law firm filing Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia); Scott Kelly, Legal Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania; and Professor David Rudovsky, a Senior Fellow at Penn Law.

Civil asset forfeiture laws were enacted to take away the profit of criminal actions by allowing the state to seize any property used to facilitate illegal activity. But individuals frequently aren’t being charged with crimes, much less convicted, the panelists explained, and their property is being “lawfully” taken from them. In addition, roughly 80 percent of individuals do not show up to court to try and reclaim their property.

According to Thompson’s research, a total of between $5 and 6 million was seized annually from police’s “stop and seize” procedures. Instead of going towards drug prevention programs or any crime-fighting agenda, the money went to the District Attorney’s Office to be spent at its discretion.

In particular with cash forfeiture (which alone generated millions of dollars), the property seized averaged around $180, according to Thompson — an amount that a rational actor would not spend the time and money (through court fees and legal fees) to recover. For many victims of cash forfeiture abuses, reclaiming a few hundred dollars isn’t worth it.

To help innocent individuals without the resources to challenge the seizure of their property, the Institute for Justice has filed a public interest lawsuit. According to Steth and Rudovsky, due process is at the core of this issue, since in many cases people have had property (cash, cars, even homes) under forfeit without a criminal conviction, let alone a proper notice or a court hearing.

Civil forfeiture is “the antithesis of due process,” noted Rudovsky, because it is structured in such a way to make challenging law enforcement action too tedious and expensive for many citizens.

Tweets from the event: