Bill Overview
Title: DUE PROCESS Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill makes various changes to procedures governing federal civil forfeiture cases, including by raising the evidentiary standard that applies to them. It also requires the Department of Justice to create a database of and annually audit federal civil forfeiture cases.
Sponsors: Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially affected by federal civil forfeiture practices
Estimated Size: 400000
- Federal civil forfeiture cases often involve individuals whose property is seized by law enforcement, sometimes without being charged with a crime.
- This bill affects individuals who may be subject to federal civil forfeiture, which can include many people across various demographics in the U.S.
- Civil forfeiture cases can impact a range of individuals, including but not limited to innocent property owners, suspects in criminal investigations, and their families who may depend on the property.
Reasoning
- The DUE PROCESS Act is likely to directly affect individuals who have experienced or are at risk of experiencing civil forfeiture due to its aim to increase oversight and accountability. This typically includes individuals from minority or low-income backgrounds who might be more exposed to law enforcement actions due to systemic issues.
- While the overall budget for the DUE PROCESS Act is set to be significant over a decade, individual experiences might vary depending on personal encounters with the civil forfeiture process. Those who face wrongful seizures stand to gain the most, but individuals not directly involved in such cases may not notice substantial changes in their daily lives.
- A proportion of the population that would be indirectly affected includes family members of those involved in civil forfeiture cases. Even if they are not direct subjects of forfeiture, families might experience improvements in financial stability and mental well-being, though the effect on Cantril well-being may vary.
- Given the large estimate of potentially affected individuals, the interviews featured aim to simulate a variety of common and uncommon perspectives across demographics and immediate relevance to highlight diverse potential impacts of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the DUE PROCESS Act is a step in the right direction. I lost valuable equipment to a forfeiture case when I wasn't even charged with a crime. Hopefully, this stops happening to innocent people in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public Defender (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could make a real difference for my clients. Right now, the system is stacked against them. Raising the evidentiary standards is crucial and overdue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Support (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in privacy rights, and anything that checks government power is good. But I haven't been directly impacted by this issue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Ohio)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I saw how my brother suffered when they took his car even though he wasn't convicted of anything. It caused a lot of stress for our family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a necessary reform; more people need to be safer from government overreach. Still, change needs to happen faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Illinois)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy because it seems fair but frankly, it doesn't affect me much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Government Employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will help shift legal paradigms, but it needs stronger judicial oversight to be truly effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Bartender (New Mexico)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's scary to think how easily you can lose your assets. Any measure that protects against that is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freelancer (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- All I want is justice and my assets back. This bill gives me hope it won't happen again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Tennessee)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Watching our friend lose everything when he was never charged was frightening. I hope this policy stands strong.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $14000000)
Year 3: $8500000 (Low: $6000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $7500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $11000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost of developing a comprehensive database for civil forfeiture cases will be a significant initial outlay.
- Annual audits are necessary to ensure compliance and transparency, adding ongoing operational costs.
- Raising the evidentiary standard may lead to longer adjudication times, impacting court resources.