Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA, 2000)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (18 U.S.C. § 983)

2) Why It Was Done
Civil asset forfeiture allowed law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to crime, often without charging the owner. CAFRA was passed to strengthen due process protections for property owners while preserving forfeiture as a law enforcement tool.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Forfeiture practices pre-date CAFRA and were widely criticized for violating Fifth Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. CAFRA added procedural safeguards.

4) Overreach or Proper Role?
Supporters argued CAFRA made the system fairer by requiring greater proof before the government could keep seized property. Critics argue forfeiture still enables policing for profit and violates property rights, with reforms not going far enough.

5) Who or What It Controls

• Law enforcement agencies (standards for seizures and forfeitures)
• Courts (judicial review procedures for forfeiture cases)
• Property owners (expanded rights to contest seizures)

6) Key Sections / Citations

• 18 U.S.C. § 983(c): Government must prove by a preponderance of evidence that property is subject to forfeiture.
• 18 U.S.C. § 983(d): “Innocent owner” defense created.
• 18 U.S.C. § 983(f): Hardship release provision for property owners.

7) Recent Changes or Live Controversies

• Forfeiture continues to face legal challenges and state-level reforms.
• Some states have required a criminal conviction before property can be forfeited.
• Critics argue federal forfeiture laws still incentivize abuse.

8) Official Sources

• Congress.gov – CAFRA 2000
• U.S. Code – 18 U.S.C. § 983
• Institute for Justice – Civil Forfeiture

• Criminal Justice
• Property Rights
• Law Enforcement
• Civil Liberties
• Forfeiture