A 71-year-old woman in Rock 
Island County, Ill., found 
herself in the middle of the
 complex system of civil
forfeiture laws as she 
successfully fought to 
have her Jeep Compass 
returned after it was 
seized by law enforcement 
for a crime she didn’t commit.
Judith Wiese’s car was
seized under Illinois
civil forfeiture laws after
 her grandson was
arrested for driving with
a suspended license. As
 the city moved to forfeit
the car, the 71-year-old
challenged the seizure in
 court and was successful,
getting her Jeep back
yesterday.
However, experts say
 her experience highlights
issues with the civil
forfeiture system, and 
particularly vehicle seizures
 that occur when the
owner of the property
didn’t commit the crime.
“You wind up trapping
 somebody who had
 nothing to do with the
offense in the forfeiture
system and essentially
 punishing them for
 conduct which they’re
not responsible for,”
Jason Snead, a policy 

 expert who has studied 
civil forfeiture, told The
 Daily Signal.

According to a forfeiture complaint 
filed with the Illinois courts, 
a deputy with the Rock 
Island County Sheriff’s 
Department pulled over 
Lukus Baker on Aug. 31, 
2015 for driving with a 
suspended license, the 
result of an arrest for 
driving under the influence
 in December 2014.
Baker was driving a 2009 
Jeep Compass, which the 
county said he frequently
 used, when police pulled
 him over that August night. 
After they arrested him,
 law enforcement seized 
the car under a subset of 
Illinois forfeiture law that
allows for forfeitures 
when the person’s 
driving privileges have 
been revoked because 
of a DUI.
The Jeep, however,
didn’t belong to Baker,
 as he had borrowed
the car from his grandmother,
Wiese.
According to Quad-Cities 
Online, Wiese, of Moline, 
Ill., lent Baker her car only
 after he promised he had 
resolved prior court 
obligations.
Baker hadn’t, and Wiese
didn’t know that police
seized her Jeep Compass
until Baker was arrested.
The 71-year-old decided
 to fight the government i
n court to get her Jeep
returned. Her car was
returned yesterday
after she paid a $150
fee, according to the
Rock Island County
state’s attorney’s office.
Disproving the 
government’s theory
Civil forfeiture is a tool
that gives law enforcement
 the power to seize cash,
cars, and property if they
suspect it’s related to a crime.
The tool’s original intent
 was to help local, state,
and federal law enforcement
 curb money laundering
 and drug trafficking.
However, in recent years,
critics of the practice say
civil forfeiture has strayed
 from its intended purpose
and is now being used to
“police for profit.”
In many cases, the property
owner involved is never
charged with a crime.
According to the Institute 
for Justice, a public interest 
law firm in Arlington, Va.,
 Illinois has some of the 
worst civil forfeiture laws in
 the country, earning a “D-”
in a recent report grading 
the states. Law enforcement 
agencies in the state can keep
 90 percent of the proceeds from 
cash, cars and property seized.
Allowing the proceeds of 
forfeited items to go directly
 back to law enforcement 
agencies conducting the
 seizures creates a perverse
 profit incentive, experts warn.
In Rock Island County,
specifically, according to
Quad-Cities Online, county
prosecutors filed close to
 1,500 forfeiture petitions
from 2010 to May 2015.
The state has won nearly
all of those cases—1,200—
and seized $2 million in
cash, 500 cars, and 14
properties, with the
 proceeds going to a
 variety of local and
state law enforcement
agencies, as well as the
prosecutor’s office.
For civil forfeiture opponents,
 Wiese’s case demonstrates
 many of the issues they
have with law enforcement’s
use of the tool.
According to Quad-Cities
Online, Wiese originally
told an associate judge
presiding over her case
she couldn’t afford a lawyer,
and property owners don’t
 have a right to one under
civil forfeiture.
Additionally, the burden
was on Wiese, not the
government, to prove that
she didn’t know about
 the crime that was being
committed—driving with
a suspended license—with
her Jeep Compass.
“That’s a complete inversion
 of the standard that the
burden is supposed to be
on the government, which
 is what most Americans
 are familiar with through
the criminal justice system,”
Snead said.
Snead said Wiese could’ve
used the “innocent owner
 defense,” but that would’ve
required Wiese, not the
government, to prove she
didn’t know about the crime
that was committed or didn’t
consent to it.
“She has to prove a negative
—that she didn’t know her
 grandson was driving with
a suspended license,” he said.
“In this case, the burden is
on her to disprove the
government’s theory.”
Not only does Wiese’s case
hit on what experts say is
abuse of civil forfeiture by
 law enforcement, but it also calls attention to the practice of police seizing vehicles from drivers who sometimes aren’t the owner of the car.
Such a practice is common
specifically among those
 arrested for driving under
 the influence.
“The biggest motivation in specifically [DUI] forfeitures are people who don’t have licenses because of a DUI are a danger on the road,” Rock Island County Assistant State’s Attorney Justin Umlah told The Daily Signal. “Actually removing their vehicle stops them from driving. In the majority of the cases, the person who did the criminal act is actually the person who registers and owns the vehicle. Some people are getting savvy enough to have their vehicles in someone else’s name other than their own to make it less likely that it will be seized.”
While law enforcement say they view the use of civil forfeiture in such cases as a way to deter people from driving while intoxicated, Snead said it can leave innocent people fighting for property they weren’t aware was being used in a crime.
“We’ve seen in other states, New Mexico for example, where the theory behind these laws is you’re trying to get the owner to take responsibility for someone else who’s been convicted of a DUI,” he said. “But what you wind up seeing is you have little control over that person’s conduct, as exemplified in this situation where the grandson lied to his grandmother and she believed him.”
New Mexico passed sweeping civil forfeiture reforms last year. However, Albuquerque officials are currently involved in a lawsuit because of its continued efforts to seize and forfeit cars driven by those arrested for drunk driving. The city admitted many of the cars belong to innocent third parties.
“There are so many other methods available to local governments that want to police drunk driving besides forfeiture that would be more effective,” Snead said. “What is the deterrent effect if, as we’ve seen in some cities like Albuquerque, as many as half of the people who are having their cars forfeited aren’t the intoxicated driver. What’s the deterrent effect there?”
In the wake of multiple reports involving Americans who had property seized, yet were never convicted of a crime, civil forfeiture opponents have mounted efforts in state legislatures across the country to reform state civil forfeiture laws.
Umlah said he doesn’t feel Rock Island County abuses the practice, though he contended that no system is perfect.
“The vast majority of forfeiture cases we handle, either narcotics-based or involving suspended licenses, are ‘I own the vehicle, and I know I’m not supposed to be driving,’” he said. “No system is perfect, the same way people get wrongfully convicted in this country. As with everyone, I’m open to make any system better. I think it’s used for its intended purpose.”