“When Cops Become Robbers”

The Challey Institute hosted a screening of a documentary on March 31 in the Memorial Union. The film, “When Cops Become Robbers,” featured victims, experts and proponents of civil forfeiture. Following the viewing was a Q&A with one of the producers, who gave a more in-depth look at how civil forfeiture affects citizens and how the policy is being addressed currently.

As an attendee, I learned about a topic that I had never heard in the discourse before. What is civil forfeiture?

Civil forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity. Unlike criminal forfeiture (which requires a conviction), civil forfeiture is set up against the property itself rather than the individual. This means a person does not need to be found guilty or even be charged with a crime for their cash, car or other assets to be taken. The burden often falls on the property owner to prove that the property was not involved in unlawful activity. The justice system upholds that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Civil forfeiture is a reverse presumption of innocence: guilty until proven innocent.

The policy has quite a history. The current template of forfeiture is inspired by English common law and maritime law where property like ships could be seized if they violated custom rules, even if the owner was not present. In the United States, civil forfeiture expanded during the latter half of the 1900s, attributed to the War on Drugs. Policymakers intended forfeiture as a way to weaken drug trafficking groups by removing their resources. Allowing law enforcement agencies to seize things like cash, cars or buildings could stop or significantly hinder a drug cartel. The policy eventually extended way beyond criminal enterprises.

Civil forfeiture raises serious concerns. Many jurisdictions allow law enforcement agencies to keep some or all of the proceeds from seized property, typically through a complicated process that can make it hard to track or comprehend. The allowance to keep these assets creates a financial incentive for police. Police may be tempted to pull over vehicles and obtain some cash from individuals, rather than actually solve crime. There is no additional profit to deescalate neighbors fighting or solve a homicide. In the film “When Cops Become Robbers,” victims of this exact behavior told their stories. These stories portrayed the disruption and massive loss that the practice of civil forfeiture caused them. It really brings into question whether due process and accountability is still upheld through this policy.

In response, reforms have been proposed across the country. Some states have raised the standard of proof required to seize property while others have increased transparency through reporting requirements. A few states now require a criminal conviction before property can be permanently taken. At the federal level, lawmakers from both parties have introduced reform efforts. However, comprehensive changes have not been consistently passed.

North Dakota has taken some steps toward reforming civil forfeiture, but it remains in use. According to the Institute for Justice, which evaluates forfeiture laws nationwide, North Dakota has historically received a mid to low grade for its policies. These evaluations point to limited protections for property owners and the ability of law enforcement to retain seized assets. While the state has introduced reporting requirements, additional safeguards may be necessary to better protect individual rights.

The documentary “When Cops Become Robbers” presented 60 minutes of personal accounts and expert testimony on the complicated topic of civil forfeiture. It made the confusing policy digestible to any viewer. Attorneys, scholars and whistleblowers demonstrated how deep the issue runs and how many lenses it can be viewed in. These narratives added to the credibility of the film and provided necessary context for viewers who are unfamiliar with civil forfeiture. The film definitely leans towards a critical view of the practice but does feature some proponents of civil forfeiture in a neutral light. The film is effective in raising awareness about the issue and how it affects due process. As a viewer, the most compelling part was the individual testimonies that really connected with viewers on personal levels.

The screening exposed students, professors and every other attendee to a complicated issue. While not commonly discussed, civil forfeiture has real consequences for people and their communities.

After seeing the documentary, it is clear that understanding forfeiture requires legal and historical context as well as a personal impact. For those in attendance with me, the film served as an introduction to a policy that raises important questions about justice and accountability.