Latest News

Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced a plan to “start suing gang members to ‘take their assets’” in an attempt to curb community violence. Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers view the Mayor’s “Victims’ Justice Ordinance” (O2021-4130) as a misguided and regressive attempt to quell rising crime in the City. Together, we have sent a statement to members of the Chicago City Council, urging them to vote against this ordinance, which, as past experience has shown, will not be effective in improving public safety and will undoubtedly result in more harm than good.

The problem with [the] argument [that seizing assets is an important tool for targeting major drug dealers] is that studies on forfeiture frequently show that the typical person whose property is seized is not a kingpin, but at best a low- or mid-level offender. Most of the time, the person is never convicted of any crime.

Washington Post via Chicago Tribune (June 14, 2017)

It is well documented that civil asset forfeiture violates people’s civil liberties and due process rights — and, generally, disproportionately affects Black, brown, and poor people and families. In 2014, police “took more property from American citizens [through asset forfeiture] than burglars did.” In 2018, Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice found that in 25% of civil forfeiture cases reviewed, criminal charges were not ultimately brought against the person whose property was seized (which resulted in forfeiture of over $670,000 in property by innocent people); 64% of the cases where criminal charges were filed were brought against Black people. There is no reason to believe that Mayor Lightfoot’s “Victims’ Justice Ordinance” would be in any way different or more effective than other civil asset forfeiture policies.

Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers urge City Council Members to oppose Mayor Lightfoot’s proposed ordinance to seek civil forfeiture from “gang members” for a variety of reasons (see our full statement here), but most notably because:

1. If the Mayor is interested in reducing crime and violence in the City of Chicago, the City’s resources would be better and more effectively spent elsewhere. The City of Chicago has tried plenty of financial punishments in the past with no evidence of improved public safety or compliance with laws. In 2011, for instance, the City of Chicago “doubled nearly all fines for the vehicle impoundment program in an attempt to generate more revenue…but revenue actually declined” because people couldn’t afford to pay the tens-of-thousands of dollars in debt they owed from storage fees, tickets, and other costs to get their cars back. Collar county prosecutors have run into problems when trying to pursue suits against “gang members” (based on the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act (740 ILCS 147)) in the past, because the lawsuits mostly targeted low-income people who struggled to get court-appointed lawyers in civil cases and lacked assets to forfeit. Today, the Chicago neighborhoods suffering most from gun violence are also the neighborhoods that do not receive adequate investments in accessible social and mental health services. Many people who perpetuate harm or become “gang affiliated” have been victims, witnesses, or in some other way traumatized by violence themselves. Seizing someone or their family’s property or resources will not interrupt these cycles of trauma and will not reduce violence.
2. The Ordinance raises concerns about due process and property rights of innocent people who own seized assets. According to the Pulitzer Center, civil asset forfeiture “skirts the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that Americans are free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” As proven by the City’s flawed past attempts to target “gang members,” the Ordinance would undoubtedly impinge on the property rights of many innocent people who own seized property. Thousands of individuals without any history of gang affiliation or criminal involvement have been listed as current or former “gang members” in the infamous and “profoundly problematic” Chicago Police Department (CPD) gang database – and it’s unclear how the City plans to prevent incorrectly-identified people, inactive and former members, and other innocent people or vulnerable populations from improper seizures.
3. Lawsuits like these target low-income people and breed law enforcement corruption. The people who suffer the most from civil asset forfeiture are those with few assets who struggle to get access to court-appointed lawyers in civil cases. Civil forfeiture programs in connection with the “War on Drugs” have repeatedly resulted in corruption and misplaced law enforcement priorities. In 2015, the Leadership Conference called civil asset forfeiture “legalized theft“; in 2019, the Pulitzer Center stated that “civil asset forfeiture often amounts to highway robbery” and “provides a potentially corrupting incentive for police to circumvent the law to fund their departments.” Between 2009 and 2015, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) took $4-9 million in property through civil forfeiture per year; without any external oversight, CPD used this money to fund police vehicles, computers, and cell phones and to purchase controversial surveillance equipment. Most of these forfeitures took place in working class, predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods on the city’s South and West Sides – extracting resources from already under-resourced communities.

Members of City Council should quickly reject the Mayor’s proposal to use a recycled city version of a harmful state civil asset forfeiture law. Taking property from people – including innocent family members and others – is not an effective way to reduce gun violence.

ACLU of Illinois (September 14, 2021)

Based on the overwhelming anecdotal and hard evidence, the Council of Lawyers and Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts urge Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot and City Council to immediately halt the progress of the “Victims’ Justice Ordinance” (O2021-4130). In the most comprehensive study on asset forfeiture yet, the Institute for Justice found that “more forfeiture proceeds don’t help police solve more crimes or reduce drug use, but police do appear to ramp up forfeiture activity when local economies suffer.” It’s essential that Chicago avoid adopting another policy that unjustly penalizes poor people, further harms our communities, does nothing to reduce violence in the city.