Two decisions enhanced the government's power to seize property connected with commission of a crime. First, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can prosecute individuals on criminal charges and seek forfeiture of their property for the same offenses in separate civil proceedings. The practice does not violate the right not to be subjected to double jeopardy, because civil forfeitures do not constitute criminal punishment. The Court reasoned that a civil forfeiture is a remedy aimed at the property itself, whereas a civil penalty, such as a fine, could implicate the double jeopardy clause because it is more punitive in nature and is directed at the offending individual.

The second case underscored the breadth of this law enforcement tool by upholding the confiscation of property that was linked to a crime but that was owned by someone who was innocent of any wrongdoing. As a result, when a car in which a husband patronized a prostitute was seized, his innocent wife also lost her ownership interest in the vehicle.

© Attorneys Online™, Inc. | Law Firm Newsletter Provided by Attorneys Online™, Inc.