St. Thomas Law Review
First Page
421
Document Type
Note
Abstract
Part I of this Note will briefly examine the the history of civil forfeiture, first in its original incarnation as medieval law and then in its limited use in the United States to ensure the payment of various taxes. In 1984, the Controlled Substance Act was amended to include the civil forfeiture of any real property used to facilitate a violation of the drug laws. Part II will examine that amendment, its reasons for enactment, and its intended use. Unfortunately, the honorable intentions of Congress never translate well to the streets. This Note will point out one of the weaknesses of the statute. By giving law enforcement agents a large percentage of the proceeds from property seized, the statute creates a pecuniary interest that ripens it for potential abuse. The first glimmer of Constitutional protection arrived in Austin v. United States. Part III will examine that case and its holding that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines applies to in rem, civil forfeiture proceedings. Part IV will delve into the Good case. The background of the case will first be examined and then its holding will be analyzed and questioned. In analyzing the Good decision, this section will answer the question, what has this done for property owners? The conclusion in Part V emphasizes that while a pre-seizure hearing is a welcomed protection, much more is needed to protect the property owner.
Recommended Citation
Charles Lobdell III,
Victims of Real Property Drug Forfeitures Now Worthy of Limited Protection,
6
St. Thomas L. Rev.
421
(1994).
Available at:
https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol6/iss2/7