A Massachusetts couple, Adam and Jennifer Perry, had a traumatic experience with the civil forfeiture law when they were pulled over for speeding in Henry County, Illinois.
The couple was carrying $107,000 in cash, which the police seized on suspicion of criminal activity. However, after hours of questioning, no charges were submitted against the couple. Adam and Jennifer insisted that the cash was made legally through insurance settlements, car sales, personal income, disability benefits, and other legal means.
Despite no evidence of wrongdoing, the police used the civil forfeiture law to keep every dollar in the truck, as well as the vehicle itself, and even Mrs. Perry’s wedding rings, under the presumption that the cash and car were connected to criminal activity.
The couple was left fighting to get their property back, even years later, after a federal judge required them to prove how they got the cash. Four years of fighting later, the judge granted a federal demand to permanently reward the funds to the government, stating that the couple failed to answer questions about where the funds came from.
Civil forfeiture is a controversial legal process in which police officers take possessions from individuals suspected of being associated with a crime or unlawful activity without necessarily charging the owners with a crime. In this case, the Perry’s were not charged with any crime, but their money was still taken from them.
Proponents of civil forfeiture argue that it is a powerful tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade, as it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets from narcotics trafficking. They also argue that it is an efficient method since it allows law enforcement agencies to use these seized proceeds to further battle illegal activity.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process, and their right to property is violated with few legal protections and due process rules to protect them. The incentives of civil forfeiture can also lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior, according to critics.
The Perrys’ experience with civil forfeiture is a prime example of the issues with the program. Although the guilt or innocence of the Perrys is unknown, it certainly seems that their rights were violated as their guilt was assumed, and they were left with the burden of proving their innocence.
“This is not Nazi Germany where you can treat people like this,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to the federal judge. “You should be treating me innocent until proven guilty and not denying me my right to counsel,” Adam added.
“I even begged and said please just give me my truck back and you can keep the money, and I’ll walk away from it. Still denied,” he continued. “You don’t understand the emotional, physical, and financial terrorism you have caused.”
The Perry’s experience highlights the need for reform in the civil forfeiture program to protect innocent individuals’ rights and prevent abuses of power by law enforcement.
WATCH the video below for more details: