Civil forfeiture is a legal practice where law enforcement agencies seize assets they suspect are tied to criminal activity. However, the controversial nature of this process stems from the fact that authorities do not need to charge the asset owner with a crime. This practice has sparked significant debate across the United States, as individuals, many of whom are innocent, find their property confiscated with little to no legal recourse. This article examines the deeply troubling case of retired Marine Stephen Lara, shedding light on how civil forfeiture laws are abused and the broader implications for Americans’ property rights.
In February 2021, Stephen Lara, a retired Marine, was driving through Nevada on a routine trip to visit his daughters. Lara’s journey took an unexpected turn when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) for allegedly following a tanker truck too closely. Despite committing no crime, Lara’s life savings—$86,900 in cash—were seized under civil forfeiture laws after a routine traffic stop.
This case, though shocking, is far from unique. Lara’s experience is part of a larger pattern in which law enforcement agencies seize money, vehicles, and other valuables under the pretense of civil forfeiture, often leaving innocent citizens in financial ruin while the legal process plays out.
The practice of civil forfeiture is heavily incentivized by a system known as “equitable sharing,” where local law enforcement agencies hand over seized assets to federal authorities in exchange for a significant portion of the proceeds. This allows agencies to bypass state laws that might limit the scope of civil forfeiture, effectively turning the process into a financial windfall for police departments and government bodies.
From 2000 to 2019, the federal government transferred approximately $8.8 billion in forfeited assets to state and local law enforcement agencies, a system that critics argue encourages overreach. In Lara’s case, the Nevada Highway Patrol stood to gain over $69,000 from the seizure of his cash—despite the fact that he was never charged with a crime.
Lara’s ordeal did not end when his money was taken. More than six months passed before the government returned his money, and this only happened after the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian nonprofit law firm, sued the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on his behalf. The IJ is now helping Lara in his ongoing lawsuit against the Nevada Highway Patrol, seeking to establish that the state’s constitution prohibits its participation in the federal “equitable sharing” program. A favorable ruling could set a legal precedent, potentially triggering similar challenges across the country.
If Lara wins his case, it would not only represent a personal victory but also a significant step towards reforming civil forfeiture laws. These laws have come under increased scrutiny in recent years, with many critics arguing that they violate basic property rights and undermine the presumption of innocence.
While civil forfeiture laws vary from state to state, most allow property to be seized based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—far lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold required in criminal cases. In some states, law enforcement needs only probable cause to seize assets, creating a dangerous environment in which innocent individuals can have their property confiscated without sufficient proof of wrongdoing.
Several states have already begun to push back against these practices. Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, and North Carolina have abolished civil forfeiture entirely, while others have enacted significant reforms. However, the majority of states continue to allow the practice, leaving countless citizens vulnerable to unjust seizures.
Beyond the financial incentives for law enforcement, the human toll of civil forfeiture is immense. For Stephen Lara, the seizure of his life savings derailed his plans to buy a home near his daughters, forcing him to relocate to Chico, California, while his legal battle continues. Others facing similar circumstances often lack the resources or legal support to fight back, as the cost of hiring an attorney to recover seized assets frequently exceeds the value of the property itself.
According to IJ, the average civil forfeiture case involves just $1,276—hardly enough to justify the expense of litigation. As a result, many victims of civil forfeiture simply give up, allowing the government to keep their property without ever having to prove any criminal activity.
The federal government’s civil forfeiture program has faced criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, with both conservatives and liberals arguing that the practice is ripe for abuse. During the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder limited the circumstances in which federal authorities could adopt local seizures. However, these restrictions were reversed in 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, reigniting the debate over civil forfeiture and equitable sharing.
Civil forfeiture reform is increasingly being seen as a bipartisan issue, with lawmakers and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum calling for change. As public awareness of cases like Stephen Lara’s grows, there is increasing pressure on both federal and state governments to rethink the way assets are seized and distributed.
Stephen Lara’s case is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked civil forfeiture laws. While the legal system allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets without charging individuals with a crime, the burden of proof is often shifted onto the property owner to demonstrate their innocence. As this legal battle unfolds, it highlights the need for comprehensive reform to protect citizens from unjust seizures and ensure that civil forfeiture is used only in cases where true criminal activity has been proven.
As cases like Stephen Lara’s continue to unfold, it is crucial for legislators and courts to address the inherent flaws in civil forfeiture laws. Without meaningful reform, innocent Americans will continue to be at risk of losing their hard-earned property to a system designed to incentivize unjust seizures.
