Columbus, OH – On Friday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Sanchez v. United States opposing unconstitutional forfeiture laws, which create perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize private property when its owner is not convicted of a crime, or in this case, wasn’t charged, or even suspected of a crime.

“When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously replied, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’ This quip recognized the universal truth that financial incentives influence human behavior,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. “The result of forfeiture laws is a system where revenue generation—not crime prevention—is the primary driver of law enforcement decisions.”

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute relies on empirical research and analysis of economists and legal scholars over the past quarter century to demonstrate that civil forfeiture regimes influence law enforcement decisions and disproportionately harm those on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. In this case, the government seized $9,000 belonging to Luis Sanchez—a man who was neither convicted, charged, or even suspected of a crime. And the government denied his petition to recover his $9,000 based on nothing more than a misplaced signature.  

Carson continued, “When the police get to keep what they seize, citizens cannot help but wonder—did the police make an arrest for public safety reasons or to raise revenue?”

# # #

UPDATE: On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in Sanchez v. United States.