May 6, 2022

Institute for Justice Condemns Staten Island DA’s Use of Civil Forfeiture Funds to Purchase Facial Recognition Technology

Danger on the road. Blue flasher on the police car at night.
Danger on the road. Blue flasher on the police car at night.

ARLINGTON, Va.—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) condemned the Staten Island District Attorney’s Office for using civil forfeiture funds to purchase controversial facial recognition technology from Clearview AI. 

“Civil forfeiture is an incredibly perverse system that strips people of their basic due process rights,” said IJ Senior Attorney Dan Alban, who co-directs IJ’s National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse. “Police should not be taking property from people without convicting them of a crime. The fact that the Staten Island DA used forfeiture funds to buy shiny new tech demonstrates the perverse profit incentives created when police get to keep forfeiture proceeds.” 

The Clearview tools were purchased with funds from the federal Equitable Sharing Program. This program allows local and state police to seize an individual’s property, turn it over to a federal agency for civil forfeiture, and then get a significant kickback from the federal government of up to 80% of the seized funds.  

IJ has fought against similar civil forfeiture abuses, including the use of equitable sharing by police in Rochester, New York, to take $8,040 from a woman who was never suspected of a crime and was planning to invest that money in a food truck business. 

Share

More on Civil Forfeiture

Civil Forfeiture

Florida Police Bought Ice Cream Truck with Forfeiture Funds

Matt Powers · March 2, 2026

IJ client Cristal Starling

Civil Forfeiture

Court Rules Rochester Woman Not Entitled to Fees or Interest After Police Seized Her Money Without Suspecting Her of Crime; Woman Will Appeal

Dan King · July 22, 2025

Civil Forfeiture

Public Interest Law Firm Commends Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office for Ending Operation Rolling Thunder After Public Records Lawsuit Revealed Constitutional Violations

Matthew Prensky · June 17, 2025