Erin Fuller

Dr. Josh Gold

POLS 1100- US Government and Politics
Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

Summary-Critique Paper
Taken, is an article written by Sarah Stillman on August 12, 2013. In
the article Stillman suggests that the federal government is stealing money
and property from citizens through the use of cash-for-freedom deals
through a legal process called civil forfeiture. She argues her point by using
research based facts and accounts from people who have been the victims of
civil forfeiture and have been through the frustrating and tedious process to
fight it. In her opinion this system that proved successful at wringing profits
from drug cartels and white-collar fraudsters has become a source of
corruption and a violation of civil liberties. She claims that African-American
and Hispanics are the main targets as well as lower class citizens that dont
have money to fight back in court. I find myself agreeing with Stillman, her
points are all valid and well researched.
Stillman points us to the small town of Tenaha, TX along US 59 where
cops were allowed to pull over citizens and seize their belongings under the
guise of civil forfeiture. Often times they would take any cash on hand,
electronics, cars, and in some cases jewelry. Most of the victims were
Hispanic or African-American. In some instances, those that didnt comply

were threatened with the possible loss of custody of their children. This was
being done with no charges being filed and the parties were not guilty of
anything. Often times the police officers would pull people over that had
done nothing more than drive too close to the white line or stay in the left
lane too long. Civil forfeiture has been abused in many places, not just
Tenaha; its being used as a revenue source for many cities, providing
bonuses to cops, lavish parties, and even frivolous items like popcorn
machines.
The fact that the police would target people in this manner and use the
as a source of income for the war on drugs or fight against crime is just
sickening. They are using an outdated legal process to, in my opinion,
practice the very thing they should be stopping, crime. These people have
done nothing wrong, theyre normal every day citizens just making their way
through the town. It scares me that the people targeted are those with lower
incomes, those that have no way of recouping after a financial loss of this
magnitude. Not only are these people being stripped of their cash, the
officers would also confiscate their vehicle, leaving them stranded without
any means of getting back home.
Another point Stillman makes is that not only is civil forfeiture being
abused, those who have been the victim of this process often have no way to
fight it since civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a
possession, regardless of its owners guilt or innocence. With criminal
forfeiture it is required that a person be convicted and found guilty before

their possessions are taken, with civil forfeiture they only need probable
cause to justify their actions, you dont even have to be accused of a crime
for it to take place. The basic principle behind civil forfeiture enables
authorities to take cash or property that has been obtained through illegal
means such as drug sales. They will then file a case against the possession
which eliminates the right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption
of innocence. Its also a long process to go through the court to get your
possessions back, often times costing more than the seized items are worth.
In many instances the cases are dropped, proving that the people being
targeted are often those who dont know how to fight a forfeiture case.
Stillman points out that theyre using this loophole to benefit them and
using it in a way that makes it impossible to fight. They dont have to have
anything more than probable cause to take your possessions, they dont
have to make an arrest, they dont even have to find drugs or drug
paraphernalia in your possession. They use suspicion as if its fact without
going through any sort of legal process to obtain these items from people;
and because theyre an authority figure theyre often not getting
reprimanded when they take things too far. We, as a society, expect the
police force to act in our best interests. We trust them to make just decisions,
to keep us safe, and to be honest in their dealings with us, but actions like
this are the reason so many are beginning to question whether the police are
just as bad as the criminals theyre hired to protect us from.

Cities are also using civil forfeiture to confiscate vehicles during

parties. The victims who have their cars seized have to pay hefty fines to get
their vehicles back, those fines can be as much as $1000 per car. Theyve
also seized homes from people expected, but not accused, of drug activity.
The homes are then auctioned off and the proceeds go directly to the police
force. So where is all of this money going after its taken? According to
Stillman the money is being used for big bonus checks to the officers,
parties, credit card charges, and one instance the money had been used as
funding for a re-election campaign. It isnt all bad though, she does point out
that in some cities the money has been used for schools, city buildings, and
to hire more officers.
Civil forfeiture, to me, seems like its nothing more than a way for
authority figures to rob innocent people. Most of the police doing these
seizures are under the impression that theyre doing the right thing, taking
money and possessions from people that have done something wrong. They
use their suspicion to condemn these people, sending them to jail while they
get big bonus checks. I mean, why wouldnt someone start to believe theyre
acting in the best interest of the public when theyre getting paid to think
that way. More often than not the video evidence of these routine traffic
stop and seizures is unusable because of interference. A lot of the time the
cameras arent even running during the stops, and it makes sense, if youre
doing something wrong why would you want evidence of that which can be
used against you later?

One of the last points Stillman covers is to show that civil forfeiture has
been abused, but it isnt always used wrongly. There are cases, even in
Tanaha, TX where hundreds of thousands of dollars were seized from people
that were actual criminals. In one case a woman was transporting over
$600,000 in bills meant to be deposited in small amounts in banks around
the state. There was another case of a man transporting 500 pounds of
marijuana in a motorhome. US 59 in Tenaha stretches from Laredo to the
Mexico border so the need to have these types of traffic stops is easy to
justify, there is an actual threat of drug traffickers in the area, but to target
everyone that might fit the profile isnt fair.
The civil forfeiture was put into action as a way to pull money from big
criminals, to fight the war on drugs, but it is easily taken out of context and
turned against the law abiding citizens. Theres no defense and the accused
are often too intimidated to come forward or fight against it so most of the
the time smaller cities can get away with it. The officers that abuse this legal
process arent having to own up to anything and the cities are merely given a
slap on the wrist for it, having only to implement a longer process before
they can seize property or money.
In conclusion I have to say that Stillman has pointed out a scary
operation, a law process that allows police to skate around the 4th
amendment and take property, money, and possessions from people without
proof of any crime committed. These people have no defense and, for some,
from being threatened to lose custody of their children many often give up

and give in. This is a perfect example of authority figures holding too much
power while ordinary working people have no way of fighting back. We, as
citizens, should be able to trust those put into authority positions, we should
be able to feel as though they have our best interests at heart. Sarah
Stillmans Taken was a beautifully written expose on civil forfeiture. She did a
great job at making the process easy to understand for those of us that are
less informed in politics like this. She really did her research and added a lot
of facts that were mind blowing to me. I thoroughly enjoyed this article and
was glad I had the opportunity to summarize it.