Civil Asset Forfeiture in St. Louis

Civil asset forfeiture is based on an ancient legal fiction that property can be guilty even if the owner is innocent. In a 1996 Supreme Court case, Tina Bennis didn't know her husband John used their car to have sex with a prostitute but lost the car anyway because the property was guilty even if she wasn't. Recently liberal and conservative justices have expressed doubts about CAF. Liberal and conservative groups—the ACLU and CATO—make common cause for reform. In the past several years, 26 states have passed fairer laws. But police can circumvent state reforms by having the federal government "adopt" the property and use the lax federal forfeiture standard to seize it. Reform in Congress also has failed. The bipartisan impetus for reform and spotty results create a favorable environment for meaningful change.

How Missouri's Drug Task Forces Avoid Accountability

Court records show that Missouri’s federally funded drug task forces have often failed to set up required oversight commissions, failed to hold oversight meetings in public and repeatedly failed to respond to Sunshine Act requests for public information. 

Timbs v. Indiana, Explained

Timbs v. Indiana was a case involving civil asset forfeiture decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. It is a significant step toward judicial reform of civil asset forfeiture practices.