Background

Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture for over 200 years. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. Civil Forfeiture

Forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes: criminal or civil. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the judicial procedure which ends in confiscation. Criminal forfeitures are part of the criminal proceedings against the property owner, and confiscation is possible only upon the conviction of the owner of the property and only to the extent of defendant's interest in the property. Civil forfeiture is ordinarily the product of a civil, in rem proceeding in which the property is treated as the offender. Within the confines of due process and the language of the applicable statutes, the guilt or innocence of the property owner is irrelevant; it is enough that the property was involved in a crime to which forfeiture attaches in the manner in which statute demands. Administrative Forfeitures

In the interests of expediency and judicial economy, Congress has sometimes authorized the use of administrative forfeiture as the first step after seizure in "uncontested" cases. It is punishment, even though it may also serve remedial purposes very effectively. Intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds, however, are the hallmarks of the more prominent federal forfeiture statutes. Double Jeopardy

Historically, the procedure used to accomplish forfeiture made a difference for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. The Supreme Court's conclusion in Austin that certain civil forfeitures might be considered punitive for purposes of the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause seemed to have obvious double jeopardy implications. The Court left open, however, the question of whether due process requires notice and the opportunity for a hearing before a restraining order may be issued. (a) Notice by Publication. (e) Disposition of forfeited property
(1) Whenever property is civilly or criminally forfeited under this subchapter the Attorney General may—
(A) retain the property for official use or, in the manner provided with respect to transfers under section 1616a of Title 19, transfer the property to any Federal agency or to any State or local law enforcement agency which participated directly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property;
(B) except as provided in paragraph (4), sell, by public sale or any other commercially feasible means, any forfeited property which is not required to be destroyed by law and which is not harmful to the public;
(C) require that the General Services Administration take custody of the property and dispose of it in accordance with law;
(D) forward it to the Drug Enforcement Administration for disposition (including delivery for medical or scientific use to any Federal or State agency under regulations of the Attorney General); or
(E) transfer the forfeited personal property or the proceeds of the sale of any forfeited personal or real property to any foreign country which participated directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property, if such a transfer—
(i) has been agreed to by the Secretary of State;
(ii) is authorized in an international agreement between the United States and the foreign country; and
(iii) is made to a country which, if applicable, has been certified under section 2291j(b) of Title 22. (B) Special Verdict Form. P.L.
Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over 200 years. Every year, it redirects property worth billions of dollars from criminal to lawful uses. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. By the close of the 20th century, however, legislative bodies, commentators, and the courts had begun to examine its eccentricities in greater detail because under some circumstances it could be not only harsh but unfair. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), P.L. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000), was a product of that reexamination.
Modern forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the procedure which ends in confiscation. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding. The property is the defendant in the case. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the innocence of the owner is irrelevant—it is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches. As a matter of expedience and judicial economy, Congress often allows administrative forfeiture in uncontested civil confiscation cases. Criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding, and confiscation is possible only upon the conviction of the owner of the property.
The Supreme Court has held that authorities may seize moveable property without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing but that real property owners are entitled as a matter of due process to preseizure notice and a hearing. As a matter of due process, innocence may be irrelevant in the case of an individual who entrusts his or her property to someone who uses the property for criminal purposes. Although some civil forfeitures may be considered punitive for purposes of the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause, civil forfeitures do not implicate the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause unless they are so utterly punitive as to belie remedial classification.
The statutes governing the disposal of forfeited property may authorize its destruction, its transfer for governmental purposes, or deposit of the property or of the proceeds from its sale in a special fund. Intra- and intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds are hallmarks of federal forfeiture. Every year, federal agencies share among themselves the proceeds of jointly conducted forfeitures. They also transfer hundreds of millions of dollars and property to state, local, and foreign law enforcement officials as compensation for their contribution to joint enforcement efforts.
This report is available in an abridged form, without citations, footnotes, or appendices, as CRS Report RS22005, Crime and Forfeiture: In Short, by [author name scrubbed]. For a discussion of selected proposed reforms, see CRS Report R43890, Asset Forfeiture: Selected Legal Issues and Reforms, by [author name scrubbed].