Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Asset Forfeiture Abuse
All Cases
2 Asset Forfeiture Abuse Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Arizona
Aug 2017
Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2017
Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”