Bad Apples or Bad Laws?
Testing the Incentives of Civil Forfeiture
Critics of civil forfeiture have long argued that allowing law enforcement to take property and pocket the proceeds creates incentives to put profits ahead of justice. Chapman University economist Bart J. Wilson and co-author Michael Preciado designed a cutting-edge experiment to see whether the rules of civil forfeiture in fact change behavior, and if so, how.
The results suggest that forfeiture abuse isn’t the result of a few “bad apples,” but bad laws that encourage bad behavior—it’s not the players so much as the game.
Related Cases

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Class Action Challenges FBI’s “Take Now, Explain Never” Forfeitures
Linda Martin's home savings were seized by the FBI. She received a confusing forfeiture notice that didn't clearly say what she did wrong for the government to want to take her money.

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Police seized an innocent woman’s $8,040, and now she is fighting to have her day in court
Cristal Starling runs a mobile food cart in Rochester, New York, to provide for herself and her grandnephew. She dreamed of expanding the business into a food truck, and she saved enough money to do…

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Armored Car Company Sues Federal Law Enforcement and a California Sheriff After Series of Illegal Roadside Seizures
An armored car company sued after a California sheriff teamed up with federal law enforcement to take proceeds from legal cannabis businesses.
In The News
Liberty & Law Article
Smooth Landing for Airport Forfeiture Victim
Liberty & Law Article
Transparently Bad
Liberty & Law Article
Our Client Got Her Car Back, But Her Lawsuit Keeps Running
Liberty & Law Article
Bad Laws, Not “Bad Apples,” Drive Forfeiture Abuse
Related Reports

Civil Forfeiture | Private Property
Policing for Profit: Second Edition
Civil forfeiture laws pose some of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today, too often making it easy and lucrative for law enforcement to take and keep property—regardless of the owner’s guilt…