Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture,^[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity. Sometimes it can mean a threat to seize property as well as the act of seizure itself.^[2] Civil forfeiture is not considered to be an example of a criminal justice financial obligation.

Proponents see civil forfeiture as a powerful tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade, with $12 billion annual profits,^[3] since it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets from suspected narcotics traffickers. They also argue that it is an efficient method since it allows law enforcement agencies to use these seized proceeds to further battle illegal activity, that is, directly converting value obtained for law enforcement purposes by harming suspected criminals economically while helping law enforcement financially.

Critics argue that innocent owners can become entangled in the process to the extent that their 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are violated, in situations where they are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent. It has been described as unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina^[4]^[5]. Further, critics argue that the incentives lead to corruption and law enforcement misbehavior. There is consensus that abuses have happened but disagreement about their extent as well as whether the overall benefits to society are worth the cost of the instances of abuse.

Civil forfeitures are subject to the “excessive fines” clause of the U.S. Constitution‘s 8th amendment, both at a federal level and, as determined by the 2019 Supreme Court case, Timbs v. Indiana, at the state and local level.^[6]

History

Legal origins

The idea of going at people through their property has a long history. The theories are quite old. The prevalence of the practice is comparatively recent.

— Daniel C. Richman, Fordham Law School, 1999^[7]

Civil forfeiture has a history dating back several hundred years with roots in British maritime law to the British Navigation Acts around the middle 1600s. These laws required ships importing or exporting goods from British ports to fly the British flag; ships that failed to do this could be seized regardless of whether the ship’s owner was guilty of doing any wrongdoing.^[8] It was easier to seize a vessel than try to apprehend an owner on the other side of the ocean,^[9] as explained by Supreme Court justice Joseph Story:

… (A) vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attaches, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner. (The seizure of the ship is justified by …) the necessity of the case, as the only adequate means of suppressing the offense or wrong, or insuring an indemnity to the injured party.

— Joseph Story^[8]

During the later Colonial years, forfeiture practices by the Crown officials using writs of assistance were one of the many activities that angered colonists, who saw the writs as “unreasonable searches and seizures” that deprived persons of “life, liberty, or property, without due process”.^[9] The early Congress wrote forfeiture laws based on British maritime law to help federal tax collectors collect customs duties, which financed most of the expenses of the federal government in the early days of the republic.^[8] Seizures allowed government to confiscate property from citizens who failed to pay taxes or customs duties.^[7] The Supreme Court upheld these forfeiture statutes in situations where it was virtually impossible to get hold of guilty persons on the high seas while possible to get hold of their property.^[8] During much of the 19th century there was not much attention paid to forfeiture laws.^[8]

Prohibition era

During Prohibition, Detroit police inspect equipment suspected of being used to make alcohol; under civil forfeiture laws, police could seize the equipment without having to charge any owners with a crime.

Government used forfeiture during the Prohibition years 1920–1933.^[8] Police seized vehicles and equipment and cash and other property from bootleggers.^[7] When Prohibition ended in 1933, much of the forfeiture activity ended as well, and modern forfeiture was an “infrequent resort” until the last few decades.^[9]

War on Drugs (1980–present)

Civil forfeiture activity increased substantially in the past thirty years.^[10] It stepped up forfeiture during the War on Drugs during the early 1980s and onwards.^[8] It became harder for criminal organizations to launder dirty money by means of the financial system, so drug cartels preferred bulk payments of cash.^[11] Illegal drugs are a big business; one estimate was that the annual profit from selling illegal drugs was $12 billion, according to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.^[8] The initial intent, similar to methods used to try to fight alcohol trafficking and use during the Prohibition era, was to use civil forfeitures as a weapon against drug kingpins.^[12]

According to journalist Sarah Stillman, a major turning point in forfeiture activity was the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.^[13] This law permitted local and federal law enforcement agencies to share the seized assets and cash.^[9] Civil forfeiture allowed federal and local governments to “extract swift penalties from white-collar criminals and offer restitution to victims of fraud”, according to Stillman.^[9] From 1985 to 1993, authorities confiscated $3 billion of cash and other property based on the federal Asset Forfeiture Program, which included both civil and criminal forfeitures.^[13] The methods were supported by the Reagan administration as a crime fighting strategy.

It’s now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.

— Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989.^[9]

The politics of civil forfeiture were somewhat unusual. The federal forfeiture laws were introduced and pushed through by Republicans in the 1980s, with support from some Democrats; but efforts to reform forfeiture laws have also come from the right,^[14] as libertarians in Congress have focused on the basic idea as offensive to property rights.^[14] In many areas civil forfeiture adversely affects persons from minorities and low-income communities, in which the typical seizure is less than $500, and Democrats have also been critical of civil forfeiture programs.^[14] The ACLU has also been a long time opponent.^[14]

Forfeiture was used for purposes other than trying to discourage illegal drug activity, such as attempts in New York City to discourage drunk driving. Forfeiture rules were used to confiscate cars of intoxicated motorists.^[7] In such instances, there are two types of cases: a criminal case against the drunk driver as a person, and a civil case against the property used to facilitate the drunk driving, specifically their car.^[7] Critics contend that the punishment can be “deemed out of proportion with the offense”; for example, after a drunk driver is arrested and convicted and possibly imprisoned, is it proper to punish him or her additionally by civil forfeiture means by confiscating a $50,000 car?^[7] Civil forfeiture has been used to discourage illegal activities such as cockfighting, drag racing, gambling in basements, poaching of endangered fish, securities fraud, and other illegal activity.^[9]

A chart showing that payouts are growing, according to the equitable sharing arrangement. Source: United States Justice and Treasury Departments.

Courts helped set up the legal framework to help law enforcement stem the drug tide while sometimes trying to rein in abuses. A 1984 law set up the equitable sharing arrangement in which state and local police can share the seizures with federal agents.^[15] While the 1993 Supreme Court case Austin v. United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine,^[16] the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally.^[8] A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy, and therefore did not violate the Constitution.^[16] However, in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that civil forfeiture was not permitted if the amount seized was “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of the offense.^[7]

Legislatures played a role as well. Since the 1990s, the number of federal statutes permitting government forfeiture doubled from 200 to 400.^[15] In 2000, lawmakers passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, or CAFRA, which stipulated protections for individuals and increased the level of proof required.^[15] Critics said that the new guidelines did not require poor persons to have free access to legal services.^[15] CAFRA guidelines suggest that if a claimant wins a civil-forfeiture case, that some of the legal fees paid to recover the property are partially payable by the government.^[15] CAFRA was supposed to raise government’s burden of proof before seizing property.^[17] CAFRA meant if government loses a forfeiture challenge, government must pay the victim’s attorney costs, but often victims are unaware of this fact, so they fail to hire lawyers thinking the cost will be prohibitive.^[17]

Police forces heeded instruction from a law enforcement consultant named Joe David who had an “uncanny talent for finding cocaine and cash in cars and trucks”, according to one report.^[18] Officers trained in David’s so-called Desert Snow stop-and-seizure techniques raked in $427 million from highway encounters during a five-year period.^[18] A contract allowed David’s consulting firm to keep 25% of the seized cash.^[18]

But when innocent owners were sometimes ensnarled in seizure proceedings, it spurred criticism. In the early 1990s, San Francisco-based defense attorney Brenda Grantland organized a group called Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (which spells the letters FEAR), with branches in New Jersey, Virginia, California, and Massachusetts.^[13] Debate about reforming civil forfeiture procedures happened in the late 1990s but after public scrutiny died down, lawmakers quietly relaxed the reforms at the behest of police groups and prosecutors without much public debate.^[10]

Civil forfeiture was used successfully on many occasions. For example, it was used to seize assets by corrupt foreigners, such as against Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, who stole money from the African nation of Equatorial Guinea and was convicted.^[19] Overall, the pattern in recent decades has been a substantial increase in forfeiture activity. According to government records, Justice department seizures went from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993 and $4.2 billion in 2012.^[9]

In 2015, Eric Holder ended the policy of “adoptive forfeiture”, which occurred “when a state or local law enforcement agency seizes property pursuant to state law and requests that a federal agency take the seized asset and forfeit it under federal law” due to abuse.^[20] Although states proceeded to curtail the powers of police to seize assets, actions by the Justice Department in July 2017 have sought to reinstate police seizure powers that simultaneously raise funding for federal agencies and local law enforcement.^[21]

Legal background

Civil versus criminal forfeiture

Civil forfeiture	Criminal forfeiture
Police against a thing or in rem	Police against a person or in personam
Legal test is Preponderance of evidence	Legal test is Beyond a reasonable doubt
Court can weigh defendant’s taking the 5th in their decision^[22]	Court can not do this^[22]
Assets returned if owner proves innocence	Assets returned if prosecution cannot prove guilt
Example: United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey	Example: United States v. John Doe

Civil procedure cases generally involve disputes between two private citizens, often about money or property, while criminal procedure involves a dispute between a private citizen and the state, usually because a law has been broken. In legal systems based on British law such as that of the United States, civil and criminal law cases are handled differently, with different tests and standards and procedures, and this is true of forfeiture proceedings as well. Both civil and criminal forfeiture involve the taking of assets by police.

In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning “against the property”; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed.^[1]

In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as “part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant”, described by the Latin term in personam, meaning “against the person”, and happens when government indicts or charges the property that is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant;^[1] the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned.

The tests to establish the burden of proof are different;^[15] in civil forfeiture, the test in most cases^[23] is whether police feel there is a preponderance of the evidence suggesting wrongdoing; in criminal forfeiture, the test is whether police feel the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a tougher test to meet.^[3]^[15]

If property is seized in a civil forfeiture, it is “up to the owner to prove that his cash is clean”.^[3] Normally both civil and criminal forfeiture require involvement by the judiciary; however, there is a variant of civil forfeiture called administrative forfeiture, which is essentially a civil forfeiture that does not require involvement by the judiciary, which derives its powers from the Tariff Act of 1930, and empowers police to seize banned imported merchandise, as well as things used to import or transport or store a controlled substance, money, or other property that is less than $500,000 value.^[1]

Justification

The Supreme Court has generally upheld the principle of civil forfeiture.

According to the Justice Department, there are three main justifications for civil forfeitures:

Punishment and deterrence. To punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used or acquired through illegal activities.^[22]
Enhance police cooperation. To enhance cooperation among foreign, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, through the equitable sharing of assets recovered through this program.^[22]
Revenue for law enforcement. As a byproduct, to produce revenues to enhance forfeitures and strengthen law enforcement.^[22]

Since a prosecutor can charge a person with a crime in a criminal case and charge his or her things in a civil case, issues such as double jeopardy have been raised. Further, there has been debate about whether seizures of property are considered as a fine or as a punishment in a legal sense. The distinction was clarified by the Supreme Court in United States v. Bajakajian, which decreed that a criminal forfeiture could be considered as both a type of fine and a punishment, while a civil forfeiture was not intended as a punishment of a person but rather a “legal fiction of punishing the property”.^[24] As a result, the court decreed that civil forfeitures that served as remedial were not considered as a type of fine.^[24]^[25]

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the principle of civil asset forfeiture at the federal level.^[10]^[26] The Court ruled in Austin v. United States (1993) that such civil forfeiture, treated as punitive actions, are subject to the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v. Indiana (2019) that protection against excessive fees in civil forfeiture is also incorporated against state and local government.^[27]^[28]

In addition, there are more than 400 federal statutes that empower police to take assets from convicted criminals, as well as from persons not charged with criminality.^[15] Sometimes the seizures happen as a result of different government agencies working together, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.^[29] Police at national and state levels cooperate in many instances according to procedural laws known as equitable sharing. In addition, there are laws that make it difficult for criminals to get dirty money clean by methods of money laundering; for example, law requires that cash deposits greater than $10,000 to a bank account be reported by the bank to the federal government,^[30] and there have been instances in which repeated cash deposits under this amount have looked suspicious to authorities even though they were done legitimately, leading to civil forfeiture seizures directly from a bank account. What has caused controversy is when the property of innocent persons is seized by police who believe that the seized items were involved in criminal activity.

A June 2019 study found that more equitable sharing funds do not translate into more crimes solved, not improving overall police effectiveness. Such funds also do not lead to less drug use. And forfeiture rates are linked to local economic performance, increasing when the local economy suffers, suggesting that such tactics are more geared towards raising revenue, not fighting crime.^[31]

Prevalence

Although there are accessible statistics of seizures at the federal level, it often happens that the totals of forfeitures from both criminals and innocent owners are combined; for example, one report was that in 2010, government seized $2.5 billion in assets from criminals and innocent owners by forfeiture methods,^[15] and the totals of assets seized incorrectly from innocent owners was not separated statistically. Further, since the United States is a federal republic with governments at both the national and state level, there are civil forfeiture seizures at the state level, which are not tracked and recorded in any central database,^[11] which make it difficult to make assessments, since state laws and procedures vary widely. According to The Washington Post, federal asset forfeiture in 2014 accounted for over $5 billion going into Justice and Treasury Department coffers, while in comparison, official statistics show that the amount stolen from citizens by burglars during that same year was a mere $3.5 billion.^[32]

Methods

Civil forfeiture begins when government suspects that a property is connected with illegal drug activity, and files a civil action:^[22]

The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes …

— Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007^[22]

Properties that can be confiscated include real estate property such as a house or motel, cars, cash, jewelry, boats, and almost anything^[15] suspected of being related to the manufacture and sale and transportation of illegal controlled substances, such as:

controlled substances^[22]
raw materials needed to make them^[22]
containers to hold them^[22]
vehicles to transport them^[22]
information for manufacture and distribution, such as books, records, and formulas^[22]
money and other valuables “used or intended to be used” to buy or sell them^[22]
property facilitating illegal transactions^[22]
chemicals needed to make them^[22]
machines for making capsules and tablets^[22]
drug paraphernalia^[22]
firearms^[22]

Traffic stops

A motorist stopped by police in Tennessee.

In a civil forfeiture case in the United States, the state is the plaintiff and a thing is the defendant—in this case, the thing is $25,180 cash that was seized by police under suspicion of being involved in illegal activity. In legal terms, it is an in rem case (against a thing) as opposed to an in personam case (against a person). Here is the docket for a real case that happened after police seized money.

From 2006 to 2008, currency deposits alone exceeded $1 billion for each year. Source: the Institute for Justice^[33]

One method of intercepting funds is by highway interdictions, typically along highway routes suspected to be used regularly by drug smugglers, often between Mexico and the United States.

News media have reported many examples:

Mandrel Stuart was not charged with a crime and there was no evidence of illegal activity but police seized his money because they assumed it was drug-related:^[34]

Mandrel Stuart and his girlfriend were on a date driving on Interstate 66 … The traffic stop on that balmy afternoon in August 2012 was the beginning of a dizzying encounter that would leave Stuart shaken and wondering whether he had been singled out because he was black and had a police record. Over the next two hours, he would be detained without charges, handcuffed and taken to a nearby police station … stripped of $17,550 in cash … earned through … a small barbecue restaurant … he was going to use the money that night for supplies and equipment.

— report in The Washington Post, 2014^[34]

Javier Gonzalez was carrying $10,000 cash in a briefcase and got pulled over in Texas; deputies handed Gonzalez a waiver, that if he signed over the money and did not claim it later, he would not be arrested, but if he refused to sign the waiver, Gonzalez would be arrested for money-laundering.^[17] Gonzalez signed the waiver wondering if the officers were real “officers of law” and wondering if he got robbed, but later sued the county, which lost, and returned his cash plus paid him $110,000 in damages plus attorney’s fees.^[17]
Matt Lee of Clare, Michigan, was driving to California with $2,500 cash when pulled over by police in Nevada, who seized almost all of the cash under suspicion that it was a “drug run”; Lee hired an attorney who took half as his fee, leaving Lee with only $1130 remaining.^[34]

I just couldn’t believe that police could do that to anyone … It’s like they are at war with innocent people.

— Matt Lee, interviewed in The Washington Post, 2013^[34]

Tan Nguyen. In 2008, a federal judge ordered $50,000 returned to a man after police seized the money during a traffic stop in Nebraska, after reviewing a recording of the seizure in which a sheriff’s deputy suggested that we “take his money and, um, count it as a drug seizure”.^[15] Tan Nguyen’s $50,000 was confiscated by police during a traffic stop, and the county agreed to return the funds after a legal challenge.^[35]
In May 2010 a couple was driving from New York to Florida and they were stopped by police because of a cracked windshield.^[34] During questioning, the officer decided that $32,000 cash in the van was “probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity”, seized it, shared it with federal authorities under equitable sharing.^[34] The victim hired a lawyer to get back the seized money who urged settling for half of the seized amount, and after the lawyer’s fees, the victim got back only $7,000.^[34]
A 2013 The New Yorker piece detailed abuses in Tenaha, Texas, where police would target out-of-state drivers using rental cars, often not issuing traffic tickets, and disproportionately pulling over African Americans and Latino-Americans.^[9] Police sometimes ask stopped motorists to sign “roadside property waivers”, which, unless signed, threaten criminal charges unless valuables are handed over; the waivers say, in effect, that victims will not contest the seizure in exchange for not being arrested.^[9]

If a passing motorist does not sign a waiver and it becomes recorded as a legal case, the case names are often unusual.^[9] In a civil forfeiture case, the asset itself is listed as the “defendant”.^[15] For example, one case was titled State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix, based on a traffic stop in which a woman was pulled over, no charges were filed, but this item of jewelry was seized.^[9] Another case name was United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency.^[30]

The Washington Post analyzed 400 seizures in 17 states that were examples of equitable sharing arrangements.^[34] Police stop motorists under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and “analyze” the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant; however, of the 400 seizures studied by The Washington Post, police did not make any arrests.^[34]

Other cash seizures

Cash has been seized in peculiar circumstances. For example, New York businessman James Lieto’s $392,000 in cash was seized by federal authorities, since his legitimate funds mixed up with illegal funds in an armored car that was seized by an FBI probe.^[15] Lieto had to wait until the government’s criminal case was finished before he could get his money back, which took considerable time, and caused considerable financial hardship and stress.^[15]

Police have broken into homes. In March 2012, in the middle of the night, without a warrant, New York City police burst into the home of Gerald Bryan, ransacked his belongings, ripped out light fixtures, arrested him, and seized $4,800 of his cash, but after a year, the case against him was dropped.^[10] When Bryan tried to get back his money, he was told it was “too late” since the money had already been put into the police pension fund.^[10] Victims of forfeiture often find themselves faced with fighting in a “labyrinthine” procedure to get their money back.^[10]

In May, 2013, IRS agents seized $32,821 from the account of a restaurant owner in Arnolds Park, Iowa, on suspicion of tax evasion,^[36] but the seizure was contested by lawyers from the Institute for Justice.^[37]^[38]

The IRS is increasingly taking money from legitimate businesspeople who … run an honest cash business and make frequent cash deposits … The government doesn’t allege that she evaded taxes. The government doesn’t allege that she was depositing money from an illicit source. She’s simply depositing her own lawfully-earned money … that she gets from customers in her restaurant …

— Institute for Justice attorney Larry Salzman, 2014^[37]

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has been seizing cash from passengers on domestic flights. Agents seized $209 million in cash from travelers at the 15 busiest airports from 2006 to 2016, according to an investigation by USA Today.^[39] Agents seized $82,373 from a passenger, transporting her father’s life savings, while boarding a domestic flight, despite any indication of criminal activity or drug use or charges, leading to a lawsuit to get the funds returned.^[39]

Seizures of real estate

Prosecutors threatened to seize a motel, similar to this one owned by the Caswell family, when there was illegal drug use on the premises in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.

Police can seize not only cash from cars but real estate such as a person’s home. For example, homes have been seized even if someone other than the homeowner on the premises committed drug crimes without the owner’s awareness.^[10] If the IRS suspects that property is involved with crime, or has been produced as a result of crime, then it has a pretext with which to seize it.^[30] From 2010 to 2013, two motel owners were under constant threat of their property being seized after there were incidents of drug selling on the motel premises.^[2] A judge ruled in 2013 that the owners could keep their motel since the owners did not know about the illegal activity and took all reasonable steps to prevent it.^[2]

I’d like to see this law done away with, or heavily modified … This law, where you are presumed guilty and have to prove yourself innocent, is completely backward from any other law I’ve ever heard of. It’s hard to believe the government has that kind of power. It’s ridiculous. Prosecutors abuse it, and the average person can’t afford to fight it.

— Russell Caswell, motel owner, 2013^[2]

Police seized a house on the pretext that it was being used for selling drugs, after a couple’s son was arrested for selling $40 worth of illegal drugs.^[12] In another case, homeowners Carl and Mary Shelden sold their house to a man who was later convicted of fraud, but because of the real estate transaction, the Sheldens got caught up in a 10-year legal battle that left them “virtually bankrupt”; after years, they finally got back their house but it was in badly damaged condition; the Sheldens had done nothing wrong.^[13]

Seizures of vehicles

In Detroit, men suspected of hiring prostitutes had their automobiles seized.^[10]^[13] An owner’s sailboat was taken after he was caught with a negligible amount of marijuana.^[13] Members of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office were charged with fraud after knowingly selling counterfeit goods at an asset forfeiture auction.^[40]

Seizures of firearms

Five states (California, Connecticut, Indiana, New York, and Oregon) have statutes that allow law enforcement officials to seize a person’s firearms without a warrant or court order if there is probable cause the individual is mentally unstable or may use the weapons to commit a crime. The weapons are to be held in the custody of the law enforcement agency until the case against the individual is dispositioned in a court of law; or the weapons must be returned to the owner if no criminal charges are filed within the timeframe specified by law. In practice, some law enforcement agencies in these states have been known to either sell or destroy seized firearms without compensating the owner after the legal matter that led to the initial seizure has been settled.^{[citation needed]}

Seizures of funds in a bank account

The government can seize money directly from a bank account. One way this happens is when there are large numbers of cash deposits that government investigators suspect are structured as a way to avoid deposits exceeding $10,000, since deposits greater than that amount must be reported to the federal government. But it can happen that legitimate businesses have regular large deposits of cash. In one instance, the Internal Revenue Service waited for large deposits to be placed into an owner’s bank account, and then forced the bank by legal means to surrender it to the agency by means of a secret warrant;^[30] authorities took $135,000 from Michigan restaurant owners, named the Cheung family, who made cash deposits from their Chinese restaurant.^[29] In another instance, a businessman in New Jersey made repeated cash deposits to save for purchasing a house; each payment was below the $10,000 threshold for reporting to the government, but there were 21 deposits over a period of four months, which caused government to suspect that criminal activity was involved; as a result, the IRS seized $157,000 and the businessman was forced to hire an attorney to get his funds returned.^[15] Officials seized $35,000 from the bank account of a grocery store “without any warning or explanation” in 2013.^[29]

Contested seizures

After police and authorities have possession of cash or other seized property, there are two ways in which the seized assets become permanently theirs: first, if a prosecutor can prove that seized assets were connected to criminal activity in a courtroom, or second, if nobody tries to claim the seized assets.^[41] What happens in many instances is that the assets revert to police ownership by default. If a victim challenges the seizure, prosecutors sometimes offer to return half of the seized funds as part of a deal in exchange for not suing.^[17] Sometimes police, challenged by lawyers or by victims, volunteer to return all of the money provided that the victim promises not to sue police or prosecutors; according to The Washington Post, many victims sign simply to get some or all of their money back.^[34] Victims often have “long legal struggles to get their money back”.^[34] One estimate was that only one percent of federally taken property is ever returned to their former owners.^[42]

Statistics

**Asset forfeitures**
Year	Total forfeitures	Notes
1986	$93.7 million	DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Fund^[8]
2004	$567 million	^[3]
2005	$1.25 billion	^[15]
2007	$1.58 billion	^[11]
2008	$1.6 billion	DOJ Asset Forfeiture fund took in $1 billion^[3]^[8]
2010	$2.50 billion	^[15]^[15]

Statistical evidence suggests a strong upward trend in recent years towards greater seizure activity. In 1986, the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund took in $93.7 million; in 2008, it took in $1 billion.^[8] Much of this growth happened in the past decade; one analysis suggested that seizures had grown 600 percent from 2002 to 2012.^[42] From 2005 to 2010, government seizures of assets from both criminals as well as innocent citizens went from $1.25 billion to $2.50 billion.^[15] Federal authorities seized over $4 billion in 2013 through forfeiture, with some of the money being taken from innocent victims.^[29] In 2010, there were 15,000 cases of forfeitures.^[15] Over 12 years, agencies have taken $20 billion in cash, securities, other property from drug bosses and Wall Street tycoons as well as “ordinary Americans who have not committed crimes”.^[42] One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime.^[10] In 2010, there were 11,000 noncriminal forfeiture cases.^[15] In 2010, claimants challenged 1,800 civil forfeiture seizures in federal court.^[15]

States

**Standards of proof in state forfeiture laws**
Source: Institute for Justice^[43]
Note: “9” means most protection for citizens
State	Standard	Rank
Alabama	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Alaska	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Delaware	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Massachusetts	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Missouri	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Rhode Island	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
South Carolina	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Wyoming	Prima facie/Probable cause	1
Georgia	Probable cause/Preponderance	2
North Dakota	Probable cause/Preponderance	2
South Dakota	Probable cause/Preponderance	2
Washington	Probable cause/Preponderance	2
Arizona	Preponderance	3
Arkansas	Preponderance	3
Hawaii	Preponderance	3
Idaho	Preponderance	3
Illinois	Preponderance^[44]	3
Indiana	Preponderance	3
Iowa	Preponderance	3
Kansas	Preponderance	3
Louisiana	Preponderance	3
Maine	Preponderance	3
Maryland	Preponderance	3
Michigan	Preponderance	3
Mississippi	Preponderance	3
New Hampshire	Preponderance	3
New Jersey	Preponderance	3
Oklahoma	Preponderance	3
Pennsylvania	Preponderance	3
Tennessee	Preponderance	3
Texas	Preponderance	3
Virginia	Preponderance	3
West Virginia	Preponderance	3
Kentucky	Preponderance Clear & convincing	4
New York	Preponderance Clear & convincing	4
Oregon	Preponderance Clear & convincing	4
Colorado	Clear & convincing	5
Minnesota	Clear & convincing	5
Nevada	Clear & convincing	5
Ohio	Clear & convincing	5
Utah	Clear & convincing	5
Vermont	Clear & convincing	5
California	Clear & convincing Beyond a reasonable doubt	6
Wisconsin	Preponderance of the Evidence (greater weight of the credible evidence).
Florida	Beyond a reasonable doubt^[45]	7
Connecticut	Criminal conviction required before seizure^[46]	8
North Carolina	Criminal conviction required before seizure^[47]	8
Montana	Criminal conviction required before seizure^[48]	8
Nebraska	Criminal conviction required before seizure^[49]	9
New Mexico	Abolished^[48]	9

Civil forfeiture varies greatly state by state. An analysis by Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker suggested that states that place seized funds in neutral accounts, such as Maine, Missouri (which puts seized funds in accounts for public education), North Dakota, and Vermont, have been much less likely to have major scandals involving forfeiture abuse.^[9] States like Texas and Virginia and Georgia, which have few restrictions on how police use the seized funds have had more scandals, as have states that allow the Equitable sharing program. With Equitable Sharing, state police can “skirt state restrictions on the use of funds”, according to Stillman.^[9] In Florida, using Equitable Sharing, the small village of Bal Harbour raked in at least $71.5 million in three years by its vice squad by carrying out an undercover money laundering sting operation, but in the end, made no arrests.^[9] In 2019, Arkansas enacted a new law that requires felony conviction before forfeiture of related assets with few exceptions.^[50]

Florida: Allows Equitable sharing between state and federal agencies.^[9]
Georgia: There are few restrictions on how police use seized assets.^[9] Georgia investigators found more than $700,000 in “questionable expenses” by Camden County’s sheriff between 2004 and 2008, including a $90,000 Dodge Viper and a $79,000 boat.^[14]
Maine: Seized funds go into neutral accounts.^[9]
Maryland: In Maryland, police forfeitures were $6 million in 2012 and $2.8 million in 2013.^[41]
Minnesota: Minnesota passed a law in 2014 forbidding authorities from confiscating a suspect’s property unless they have been convicted of a crime or plead guilty to committing it.^[51]
Missouri: Seized funds go into accounts earmarked for public education.^[9]
Montana: In June 2015, governor Steve Bullock signed a law requiring authorities to first get a criminal conviction before seizing property through civil forfeiture.^[48]
Nebraska: State civil forfeiture standard was beyond a reasonable doubt^[8] but in 2016 it was changed to require a criminal conviction first before any assets could be seized.^[49]
Nevada: There were allegations that Nevada police unlawfully took tens of thousands of dollars from motorists.^[35]
New Mexico: Government took $800,000 from a used car dealer in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and held his money for many months before giving it back, but the seizure had an adverse effect on his business and on the owner’s health.^[29] In 2015, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez signed a bill into law making Civil Forfeiture illegal in New Mexico. The prohibition does not apply to property directly connected to the commission of a crime (e.g., money or property obtained through drug trafficking, or stolen property)^[48]^[52]
New York: New York City ransacked a home, seized cash, but it was later returned.^[10]
North Carolina: Abolished civil forfeiture almost entirely.^[47]
North Dakota: Seized funds go into neutral accounts.^[9]
Oklahoma: Seized funds or property are forfeited if any connection to any drug crime is proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Once forfeited, the seizing agency can keep and use the funds largely at its discretion. Due to the lack of any state reporting or centralized accounting, no accurate total of seizures is available, but estimates tend to run in the tens of millions each year, much from known drug trafficking corridors such as Interstate 40.^[53] Notable abuses of forfeiture funds include prosecutors paying off student loans and living in seized houses rent free.^[54]
Pennsylvania: In Philadelphia, it is often the homes of African-Americans and Hispanics who are targeted by civil forfeiture abuses; what happens in many instances is that a child or grandchild who doesn’t own the home is nabbed on a drug-related offense, and police use this as a pretext to seize the entire home.^[9] In Philadelphia, authorities made thousands of “small-dollar seizures”; in 2010, the city filed 8,000 forfeiture cases, which amounted to $550 for the average take.^[12] From 2002 to 2012, Philadelphia seized $64 million by means of its forfeiture program, a total that was more than that seized by Brooklyn and Los Angeles combined.^[12]
Texas: In Texas, in Jim Wells County, authorities seized more than $1.5 million during a four-year period mostly off of U.S. Route 281, described as a “prime smuggling route for drugs going north and money coming south”.^[17] Seized cash is a third of the budget of the sheriff’s department, allowing it to buy more equipment, high-powered rifles, and police vehicles.^[17] There are few restrictions on how police use seized funds.^[9] In some counties in Texas, 40% of police revenue comes from forfeitures.^[9] Texas, with many smuggling corridors to Mexico, and police seized $125 million in 2007.^[3]
Vermont: Seized funds go into neutral accounts.^[9]
Virginia: Few restrictions on how police use seized assets.^[9]
Washington, D.C.: Victims seeking to get their seized property back in Washington, D.C., may be charged up to $2500 for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, and it can take months or years for a decision to finally happen.^[9]
Wisconsin: State civil forfeiture standard is preponderance of the evidence (Wis Stat sec. 961.555(3).

Controversy

Civil forfeiture has generated substantial controversy.

Proponents

FBI special agent Douglas Leff argues that civil forfeiture is a necessary tool for law enforcement to combat money laundering by criminal operatives.

Proponents argue that civil forfeiture tactics are necessary to help police fight serious crime.^[42] It is seen as a vital and powerful weapon in the continuing battle against illegal drugs,^[13]^[26] and effective at discouraging criminal activity.^[15]^[30] It makes it easier for law enforcement to fight organized crime when they had trouble imprisoning offenders, since they could deprive them of their property and income when it is much harder to prove their guilt in a court of law.^[10]

Prosecutors choose civil forfeiture not because of the standard of proof, but because it is often the only way to confiscate the instrumentalities of crime. The alternative, criminal forfeiture, requires a criminal trial and a conviction. Without civil forfeiture, we could not confiscate the assets of drug cartels whose leaders remain beyond the reach of United States extradition laws and who cannot be brought to trial. Moreover, criminal forfeiture reaches only a defendant’s own property. Without civil forfeiture, an airplane used to smuggle drugs could not be seized, even if the pilot was arrested, because the pilot invariably is not the owner of the plane. Nor could law enforcement agencies confiscate cash carried by a drug courier who doesn’t own it, or a building turned into a “crack house” by tenants with the knowing approval of the landlord.

— Gerald E. Mcdowell Chief, Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, Dept. of Justice, 1996, writing in The New York Times^[26]

The head of the asset forfeiture section of the Department of Justice said that civil forfeiture of cash from innocents was insignificant compared to the “thousands of traffic stops” that bust major drug money couriers.^[17]

What’s troubling to you? That a drug trafficker who’s bringing money from the U.S. to Mexico, who’s carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?

— Richard Weber, US Justice Department, 2008^[17]

Police used civil forfeiture laws to help return swindled funds to their owners. Photo: Convicted swindler Bernard Madoff.

Civil forfeiture has been used to restore money stolen by fraud and other schemes by corrupt politicians.^[55] Civil forfeiture targets cybercrime, fraud, and scams in high finance at Wall Street, and money-laundering on a global scale.^[42] It enables police to have sufficient power to “return money to crime victims” in instances of swindling or fraud.^[15] Civil forfeiture laws were helpful in enabling authorities to seize and return swindled funds by the Bernard Madoff fraud.^[15]

Proponents argue that government has sufficient safeguards in place so that individuals can challenge seizures if the need arises.^[17] Justice William H. Rehnquist said in a Supreme Court decision that federal forfeiture in drug-related cases was not a punishment but served nonpunitive purposes such as encouraging people to be careful that their property was not used illegally.^[16] A lobbyist for the Maryland State Police named Thomas Williams argued that bills to require police to keep better records of seized property would cost law enforcement more time and money, and that trying to track seizures by multi-agency task forces would not be easy.^[41] Proponents say that when claimants contest the seizures, they rarely win back their money, suggesting that the “system is working properly”.^[15] Proponents say the system is monitored to make sure seizures are properly done.^[15] In addition, the funds enable police forces to equip themselves further for more effective crime prevention; for example, a $3.8 million drug bust let officers equip their cars with $1,700 video cameras and heat-sensing equipment for a seven-member force.^[13]

Critics

Critics include citizens, defense attorneys, and advocates for civil rights.^[13] They point to serious instances of abuse in which innocent owners have been victimized.^[42] Critics are from both sides of the political spectrum, from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and right-leaning groups such as The Heritage Foundation.^[15] The main criticisms of civil forfeiture proceedings are as follows:

Flawed judicial process. Critics suggest that civil forfeitures are mostly “devoid of due process”.^[30] Arguments have been made that the seizures violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution since owners have few means to challenge the seizures.^[51] They see some seizures as assaults against individual rights.^[29] Critics argue that criminals are treated better in the courts than innocent owners who have property seized, since criminals are often told they have a right to an attorney, and that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is much higher in criminal trials than in civil trials.^[30] Burden of proof is shifted to victims to prove innocence.^[8] Victims of civil forfeiture are considered guilty until proven innocent, thereby turning the principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head.^[12]^[29]^[30] Because it is part of the civil justice system, there are no attorneys provided for defendants as can happen in some criminal trials; people who can not afford an attorney have slim chances of recovering their property.^[12] Most cases are never heard by a jury or judge since victims are unable to fight the seizures by hiring a lawyer.^[29] In contrast to principles of open justice, seizures are often done through sealed documents with a lack of transparency.^[42] Clinical law professor Louis Rulli of the University of Pennsylvania said that a piece of property does not have the same rights as a human: no right to an attorney, no presumption of innocence.^[9]
Excessive punishment. Justice John Paul Stevens said in a single dissenting vote in 1996 that civil forfeiture of a house, in which marijuana had been illegally processed, was an example of an excessive fine, and a violation of the Eighth Amendment, although the majority of the court disagreed.^[16]

Critics contend that the lure of cash tempts police towards subverting the rules for personal gain.

Motivates police misbehavior. Critics contend that the system is set up in a way as to incentivize “perverse behavior” by “predatory government agencies”.^[30] It makes it possible for government officials to seize property such as cash, vehicles, houses, and jewelry from people without ever convicting them for wrongdoing in a court or even charging them with a crime.^[29] The cash and assets are a major temptation for police to presume that activity is illegal. Critics say the huge amount of money involved have a distorting effect on police, such that they are more interested in seizing cash rather than illegal drugs.^[3] Seized assets can be used for police office expenses, new equipment, vehicles.^[3] The profit motive, in which police can keep 90% or more of profits, “forms the rotten core of forfeiture abuse”.^[8] Prosecutors and police have a strong incentive to seize property since the funds can be used to pay expenses of the District Attorney’s office, including salaries. Over a ten-year period, the forfeiture money collected was $25 million in Philadelphia, with seized funds being used to pay salaries for people working in the District Attorney’s office.^[12] When funds are returned to the victim, it can happen that the funds come out of taxpayer money, not out of police funds such as a pension fund.^[10] Seized amounts of money have gone for new police equipment, parties, travel expenses, training seminars, sometimes held in distant locations such as Las Vegas or Hawaii.^[10] A Texas prosecutor used $25,000 in seized cash to take his office staff including spouses and a judge on a vacation to Hawaii.^[10] There are no penalties for wrongful seizures, particularly when taxpayers pay when ill-gotten gains from innocent citizens must be returned, so there is an incentive to “find” a drug-related issue when police come across cash.^[10] The incentives work against police seizing drugs but push them to seize cash instead:

If a cop stops a car going north with a trunk full of cocaine, that makes great press coverage, makes a great photo. Then they destroy the cocaine … If they catch ’em going south with a suitcase full of cash, the police department just paid for its budget for the year.

— Jack Fishman, former IRS agent, criminal defense attorney, 2008^[3]

Innocent owners ensnared. Critics argue that innocent owners suffer emotionally and financially.^[34]
Difficult to challenge seizures. The process forces property owners with limited financial abilities to have to hire attorneys and take time and money simply to “prove their innocence”.^[30] Victims must actively fight to recover their seized property; if they do nothing, or wait, then they will lose everything.^[30] If victims do not seek help from sympathetic lawyers such as those of the Institute for Justice, they can sometimes be offered to have a fraction of their property returned as part of a deal; critics have described the IRS as “bullies” practicing “extortion” against innocent citizens.^[30] Procedures to get money back are often fraught with difficulty.^[10] Retrieving seized property can be a “bureaucratic nightmare” where victims meet not with a judge or jury but with a prosecutor.^[12]
Arbitrary punishments. Critics suggest that civil forfeitures can be arbitrary, varying significantly from one case to another; for example, Alan Finder in The New York Times wondered whether it was “fair that one driver loses a car worth $45,000 and another loses one worth $700?”, if each situation resulted from drunk driving arrests.^[7]
Unfairly targets poor and politically weak persons. Many victims of civil forfeiture are “poor and politically weak” and unable to mount a sustained battle in the courts to get their property returned.^[51]
Subverts state law. Local and state police often cooperate with federal authorities in what has been called equitable sharing agreements.^[14] Since many states have laws restricting or limiting civil forfeitures, as well as requiring higher standards of proof before property can be taken, local police can sidestep these rules by treating the suspected criminal activity as a federal crime, and bringing in federal authorities.^[14] As a result, after the seizure, local and federal agencies share the proceeds with 10% to 20% of it going to the federal agency and the remainder to the local police force.^[14] Accordingly, equitable sharing “effectively subverts the will and intent of the state legislatures” and has been criticized by prominent civil rights attorney and property rights advocate Scott Bullock as being a “complete violation” of the principle of federalism.^[14]
Extent of abuse. Proponents and critics differ about the extent of cases in which innocent persons had their property seized. Proponents argue that the cases are few in number, while critics contend that many instances of abuse happen without awareness by the public as a result of the signing of waivers, victims not challenging seizures for lack of knowledge, and other reasons related to a general lack of judicial transparency. The Baltimore Sun made reports that in 2012, half of victims with seized assets were not convicted of a crime.^[41]

Efforts at reform

Comedian and political commentator John Oliver did a sixteen-minute segment on his show Last Week Tonight in 2014 discussing civil forfeiture.

There have been numerous reports in the media about systemic abuse of civil forfeiture. USA Today described it as “an increasingly common—and utterly outrageous—practice that can amount to legalized theft by police”.^[56] Reporter Sarah Stillman writing in The New Yorker interviewed numerous police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, justices and plaintiffs around the United States and found that many had reservations that innocent Americans were being abused.^[9] The New Yorker published a “sprawling investigation” about how cities abuse civil forfeiture to “bolster their cash-strapped coffers by seizing the assets of the poor, often on trumped up charges”.^[10] Comedian John Oliver devoted a presentation to a satirical exposure of civil forfeiture in 2014.

Organizations working for reform, as well as helping individual victims, include the Institute for Justice, a libertarian nonprofit law firm in Washington, D.C., which works to end civil forfeiture abuse.^[30] It has helped numerous clients recover property seized by the government.^[30] The Institute of Justice is helping one forfeiture victim sue the federal district court as well as the mayor, district attorney, and police commissioner in Philadelphia.^[12] Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, advocates that civil forfeiture should be abolished except for use in enforcing maritime and customs laws, and require that any seizures be linked to criminal convictions of specific people.^[57] If that is not possible, Bullock recommends that seized revenues be placed in neutral funds such as drug treatment efforts, that standards of proof for law enforcement be raised to ensure that police provide “clear and convincing evidence” of wrongdoing, that the burden of proof should be moved to government to prove wrongdoing, that seized assets should be tracked such that information is easily accessible by the public, and that the equitable sharing arrangement be abolished.^[57] Sometimes victims turn to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for legal assistance in winning back their seized property.^[42]

There has been opposition to civil forfeiture in some lower courts.^[16] There have been attempts by lawmakers to introduce legislation to prevent abuses based on civil forfeiture procedures; one proposal was to raise the standard of proof necessary before property could be seized, and require government to prove that an owner of property was involved in an illegal criminal activity before such seizures could happen.^[14] There have been class action lawsuits against authorities, such as one in East Texas by black and Latino drivers; the suit alleges that police took $3 million from 2006 to 2008 in 140 separate incidents.^[35] One reform effort is to require authorities to keep better records about seized assets.^[41]

In 2015, the New Mexico legislature outlawed civil forfeiture.^[52] Also in 2015 a number of criminal justice reformers, including the Koch family foundations and the ACLU, announced plans to advocate the reduction of asset forfeitures due to the disproportionate penalty it places on low-income wrongdoers; the forfeiture of private property in such cases often results in the deprivation of the majority of an individual’s wealth.^[58]

As civil forfeiture may not be allowed a new practice has emerged. By classifying valuables such as cars, cellphones, and wallets with cash as evidence the police can keep them and by making it very difficult and time consuming to get them back. After 120 days the police can sell the items.^[59]

Marijuana legalization and forfeiture

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been using civil forfeiture as one way of funding their efforts to combat the use of illegal drugs, including marijuana, which continues to be illegal to possess under Federal law as of 2019.^[60]^[61] According to government figures, the DEA collected $18 million in 2013 as part of its Cannabis Eradication Program.^[62] Proponents in favor of legalizing marijuana have objected to this practice, which includes DEA seizures of properties in which marijuana is used and sold. A bill has been proposed in the United States Congress to eliminate this source of funding.^[63]^[64] As more states progress towards legalizing marijuana for medical use and for recreational use, there are more businesses to sell marijuana, sometimes called dispensaries or “weed shops”. A report in The Guardian in 2015 suggested that such shops operated in a “tricky gray zone”, so that even in the 23 states where medicinal cannabis is legal, such dispensaries can be “wiped out by a single visit from law enforcement”.^[65] While state law may recognize such establishments as having a legal purpose, federal law does not recognize this, and conflicting interpretations can emerge, which can result in properties being confiscated.^[65] It has sparked controversy and, in some instances, public outrage.

References…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Story 3: Neither Government Dependency Nor Country Dependency Are Reliable When A Real Crisis Hits and Countries Commence Hoarding of Medicines, Medical Supplies and Equipment — United States Gets Most of Its Medicines and Ingredients for Drugs From Communist China — Wake Up Americas — Competition Not More Government or Country Dependence Is The Answer — Videos

See the source image

New warning issued about US dependence on Chinese medicine

Health Scare Threat Over Dependence On Chinese Medicine

Warning: China’s control of generic drugs could be a threat to your life!

Addressing Our Perilous Dependence on Chinese Manufactured Drugs – Rosemary Gibson

Rosemary Gibson, “China Rx”

Rosemary Gibson, China Rx Author, speech at Made In America Event. “Our medicine is not made here.”

Growing Concerns Over China’s Control Of American Drug Supply | NBC Nightly News

Rising concern over safety of generic prescription drugs

Fentanyl: China’s Drug War Against the US | America Uncovered

Joe Rogan – The History of Fentanyl

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

	2020 Jan	2019 Dec	2019 Nov	2019 Oct	2019 Sep	2019 Aug	2019 Jul
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET)	10	11	13	11	15	11	14
Economy in general	2	2	4	3	4	3	3
Gap between rich and poor	2	1	2	1	1	1	2
Unemployment/Jobs	1	2	2	2	3	2	2
Federal budget deficit/Federal debt	1	2	2	2	2	3	2
Taxes	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lack of money	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Wage issues	1	*	1	1	1	1	1
Foreign trade/Trade deficit	—	*	*	1	1	1	*
Corporate corruption	*	*	—	*	*	*	*
High cost of living/Inflation	*	*	*	*	1	*	1
Fuel/Oil prices	—	*	—	—	—	*	*
NON-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET)	82	82	85	86	84	86	85
The government/Poor leadership	28	25	33	34	23	22	23
Immigration	6	10	11	13	16	18	27
Healthcare	6	5	6	5	5	6	7
Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness	5	6	4	3	3	3	3
Unifying the country	5	4	5	5	4	4	4
Ethics/moral/religious/family decline	5	3	3	3	3	2	3
Environment/Pollution/Climate change	4	5	3	4	6	3	4
Lack of respect for each other	4	4	3	3	2	4	3
Race relations/Racism	3	6	5	6	6	8	7
Guns/Gun control	2	1	2	2	5	8	1
Foreign policy/Foreign aid/Focus overseas	2	1	1	1	1	*	1
Education	2	1	2	2	2	2	3
Wars/War (nonspecific)/Fear of war	2	*	1	1	1	1	1
Situation in Iraq/ISIS	2	—	*	*	*	—	1
Drugs	1	2	2	2	2	1	2
National security	1	2	1	*	1	1	*
Elections/Election reform	1	2	1	1	1	*	1
Crime/Violence	1	2	2	2	1	4	1
Judicial system/Courts/Laws	1	1	1	2	2	1	1
International issues, problems	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Welfare	1	1	*	*	1	*	1
The media	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lack of military defense	1	1	1	*	*	1	1
Terrorism	1	*	1	1	*	1	*
Abortion	1	*	2	1	1	1	1
War/conflict between Middle East nations	1	—	—	*	*	—	—
Children’s behavior/Way they are raised	*	1	*	*	*	*	*
Advancement of Computers/Technology	*	*	*	*	—	*	*
Gay/Lesbian rights	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Care for the elderly/Medicare	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Situation with Russia	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
School shootings	—	1	*	*	1	—	*
Situation with China	—	*	1	*	1	*	*
Social Security	—	*	1	*	*	*	*
Situation with North Korea	—	*	—	*	—	—	1
Other non-economic	6	1	5	5	4	5	4
No opinion	7	4	3	3	3	3	6
Total	112%	108%	119%	117%	117%	117%	127%
* Less than 0.5%; Percentages total more than 100% due to multiple mentions.
GALLUP

Category	Total	Men	Women	White	Black or African Ameri- can	Asian	Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
Civilian noninstitutional population	-811	-403	-408	-461	-59	-273	-323
Civilian labor force	-524	-289	-235	-297	-41	-171	-219
Participation rate	0	0	0	0	0	0	-0.1
Employed	-507	-279	-227	-287	-39	-167	-210
Employment-population ratio	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Unemployed	-17	-10	-9	-10	-2	-4	-9
Unemployment rate	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Not in labor force	-287	-115	-172	-164	-18	-102	-104
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Category	Dec.-Jan. change, as published	2020 population control effect	Dec.-Jan. change, after removing the population control effect(1)
Civilian noninstitutional population	-679	-811	132
Civilian labor force	50	-524	574
Participation rate	0.2	0	0.2
Employed	-89	-507	418
Employment-population ratio	0.2	0	0.2
Unemployed	139	-17	156
Unemployment rate	0.1	0	0.1
Not in labor force	-729	-287	-442
(1) This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally adjusted estimates.

Category	Jan. 2019	Nov. 2019	Dec. 2019	Jan. 2020	Change from: Dec. 2019- Jan. 2020
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population	258,239	260,020	260,181	259,502	–
Civilian labor force	163,142	164,347	164,556	164,606	–
Participation rate	63.2	63.2	63.2	63.4	–
Employed	156,627	158,536	158,803	158,714	–
Employment-population ratio	60.7	61.0	61.0	61.2	–
Unemployed	6,516	5,811	5,753	5,892	–
Unemployment rate	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.6	–
Not in labor force	95,097	95,673	95,625	94,896	–

Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.6	–
Adult men (20 years and over)	3.7	3.2	3.1	3.3	–
Adult women (20 years and over)	3.6	3.2	3.2	3.2	–
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)	12.9	12.0	12.6	12.2	–
White	3.5	3.2	3.2	3.1	–
Black or African American	6.8	5.6	5.9	6.0	–
Asian	3.1	2.6	2.5	3.0	–
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity	4.8	4.2	4.2	4.3	–

Total, 25 years and over	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	–
Less than a high school diploma	5.7	5.3	5.2	5.5	–
High school graduates, no college	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.8	–
Some college or associate degree	3.4	2.9	2.7	2.8	–
Bachelor’s degree and higher	2.4	2.0	1.9	2.0	–

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs	3,060	2,804	2,686	2,665	–
Job leavers	816	776	829	836	–
Reentrants	1,944	1,663	1,655	1,838	–
New entrants	607	581	551	557	–

Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks	2,319	2,026	2,065	2,059	–
5 to 14 weeks	1,999	1,753	1,730	1,755	–
15 to 26 weeks	898	865	812	887	–
27 weeks and over	1,259	1,219	1,186	1,166	–

Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons	5,105	4,288	4,148	4,182	–
Slack work or business conditions	3,402	2,634	2,657	2,655	–
Could only find part-time work	1,413	1,259	1,215	1,294	–
Part time for noneconomic reasons	20,984	21,532	21,586	22,154	–

Persons not in the labor force
Marginally attached to the labor force	1,498	1,244	1,230	1,342	–
Discouraged workers	418	316	289	337	–
– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Category	Jan. 2019	Nov. 2019	Dec. 2019(P)	Jan. 2020(P)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	269	261	147	225
Total private	258	247	142	206
Goods-producing	75	45	-5	32
Mining and logging	5	-11	-11	0
Construction	50	-2	11	44
Manufacturing	20	58	-5	-12
Durable goods(1)	21	45	-1	-11
Motor vehicles and parts	-0.3	40.5	1.3	-10.6
Nondurable goods	-1	13	-4	-1
Private service-providing	183	202	147	174
Wholesale trade	6.3	3.0	9.5	8.4
Retail trade	-7.9	-13.9	44.9	-8.3
Transportation and warehousing	46.8	22.6	3.9	28.3
Utilities	0.1	1.0	0.7	-1.4
Information	-11	9	8	5
Financial activities	11	12	5	-1
Professional and business services(1)	-2	37	14	21
Temporary help services	-28.2	2.6	5.9	-1.5
Education and health services(1)	56	73	22	72
Health care and social assistance	37.6	56.7	25.0	47.2
Leisure and hospitality	81	43	36	36
Other services	3	16	3	14
Government	11	14	5	19

(3-month average change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	195	218	198	211
Total private	188	211	193	198

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)
Total nonfarm women employees	49.7	50.0	50.0	50.0
Total private women employees	48.3	48.6	48.7	48.7
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees	82.4	82.2	82.2	82.2

HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours	34.5	34.3	34.3	34.3
Average hourly earnings	$27.58	$28.34	$28.37	$28.44
Average weekly earnings	$951.51	$972.06	$973.09	$975.49
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)	110.5	111.2	111.3	111.5
Over-the-month percent change	0.2	-0.1	0.1	0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)	145.8	150.7	151.0	151.6
Over-the-month percent change	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX (Over 1-month span)(5)
Total private (258 industries)	62.2	63.4	55.6	59.7
Manufacturing (76 industries)	59.2	61.8	46.1	46.7
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (P) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2019 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

	Republican Party	Democratic Party	Same/Other/No opinion
	%	%	%
2019 Sep 3-15	40	44	16
2018 Sep 4-12	40	41	19
2017 Sep 6-10	34	41	25
2016 Sep 7-11	42	38	20
2015 Sep 9-13	42	37	23
2014 Sep 4-7	40	36	25
2014 Jul 7-10	35	35	29
2013 Sep 5-8	34	39	27
2012 Sep 6-9	39	49	13
2011 Sep 8-11	44	37	19
2010 Sep 13-16	40	38	22
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2	34	45	20
2008 Sep 8-11	39	46	14
2007 Sep 14-16	30	47	22
2006 Sep 7-10	34	49	16
2005 Sep 12-15	39	40	21
2005 Jan 3-5	41	41	18
2004 Sep 13-15	46	43	11
2004 Jan 12-15	39	46	15
2002 Jul 26-28	38	36	26
2001 Jan 10-14	39	39	22
1999 Jan 15-17	33	43	24
1998 Apr 17-19	40	42	18
1997 Jan 10-13	33	43	24
1996 Jul 25-28	37	41	22
1996 May 9-12	40	44	16
1995 Jan 16-18	42	32	26
1994 Oct 22-25	41	37	22
1994 Aug 15-16	38	37	25
1994 Aug 8-9	39	37	24
1994 Jul 15-17	39	32	29
1994 Jan	31	39	30
1993 Sep 10-12	31	37	32
1993 Jan 8-11	29	45	26
1992 Mar 26-29	34	40	26
1991 Jul 11-14	36	28	36
1991 Mar 7-10	40	27	33
1990 Oct	30	29	41
1988 Sep	38	33	29
1988 May 9-11	27	40	33
1987 Apr 10-13	29	37	34
1986 Jan 10-13	33	28	39
1985 Jan 25-28	39	29	32
1984 Aug 10-13	39	37	24
1984 Feb 10-13	30	32	38
1983 Nov 18-21	28	35	37
1982 Aug 13-16	26	35	39
1981 Jan 8-11	39	20	41
1980 Mar 28-31	28	32	40
1979 Oct 12-15	25	33	42
1976 Apr 23-26	18	39	43
1975 Oct 17-20	15	42	43
1972 Aug	28	34	38
1968 May	30	28	42
1964 Apr 24-29	16	40	44
1960 Feb 4-9	24	32	44
1956 Sep 20-25	55	45	—
GALLUP

	Symptomatic Illnesses		Medical Visits		Hospitalizations		Deaths
Season	Estimate	95% U I	Estimate	95% U I	Estimate	95% U I	Estimate	95% U I
2010-2011	21,000,000	(20,000,000 – 25,000,000)	10,000,000	(9,300,000 – 12,000,000)	290,000	(270,000 – 350,000)	37,000	(32,000 – 51,000)
2011-2012	9,300,000	(8,700,000 – 12,000,000)	4,300,000	(4,000,000 – 5,600,000)	140,000	(130,000 – 190,000)	12,000	(11,000 – 23,000)
2012-2013	34,000,000	(32,000,000 – 38,000,000)	16,000,000	(15,000,000 – 18,000,000)	570,000	(530,000 – 680,000)	43,000	(37,000 – 57,000)
2013-2014	30,000,000	(28,000,000 – 33,000,000)	13,000,000	(12,000,000 – 15,000,000)	350,000	(320,000 – 390,000)	38,000	(33,000 – 50,000)
2014-2015	30,000,000	(29,000,000 – 33,000,000)	14,000,000	(13,000,000 – 16,000,000)	590,000	(540,000 – 680,000)	51,000	(44,000 – 64,000)
2015-2016	24,000,000	(20,000,000 – 33,000,000)	11,000,000	(9,000,000 – 15,000,000)	280,000	(220,000 – 480,000)	23,000	(17,000 – 35,000)
2016-2017	29,000,000	(25,000,000 – 45,000,000)	14,000,000	(11,000,000 – 23,000,000)	500,000	(380,000 – 860,000)	38,000	(29,000 – 61,000)
Preliminary estimates*	Estimate	95% UI	Estimate	95% UI	Estimate	95% UI	Estimate	95% UI
2017-2018*	45,000,000	(39,000,000 – 58,000,000)	21,000,000	(18,000,000 – 27,000,000)	810,000	(620,000 – 1,400,000)	61,000	(46,000 – 95,000)
2018-2019*	35,520,883	(31,323,881 – 44,995,691)	16,520,350	(14,322,767 – 21,203,231)	490,561	(387,283 – 766,472)	34,157	(26,339 – 52,664)

Influenza
Other names	Flu, the flu

Influenza virus, magnified approximately 100,000 times
Specialty	Infectious disease
Symptoms	Fever, runny nose, sore throat, muscle and joint pain, headache, coughing, feeling tired^[1]
Usual onset	One to four days after exposure^[1]
Duration	~1 week^[1]
Causes	Influenza viruses^[2]
Prevention	Hand washing, influenza vaccine, surgical masks^[1]^[3]
Medication	Neuraminidase inhibitors such as oseltamivir^[1]
Frequency	3–5 million severe cases per year^[1]
Deaths	Up to 650,000 respiratory deaths per year^[4]^[1]

Symptom:	sensitivity	specificity
Fever	68–86%	25–73%
Cough	84–98%	7–29%
Nasal congestion	68–91%	19–41%
All three findings, especially fever, were less sensitive in people over 60 years of age.

Name	Date	Subtype	People infected (est.)	Deaths	Case fatality rate	Pandemic Severity Index
1889–1890 flu pandemic (Asiatic or Russian Flu)^[209]	1889–1890	H3N8 or H2N2 ?	N/A	1 million	0.15%	N/A
1918 flu pandemic (Spanish flu)^[210]	1918–1920	H1N1	33% (500 million)^[211]	20 to 100 million	2–3%^[212]	5
Asian Flu	1957–1958	H2N2	8-33% (250–1000 million^[213])	1 to 1.5 million	<0.2%^[214]	2
Hong Kong Flu	1968–1969	H3N2	7-28% (250–1000 million^[215])	0.75 to 1 million	<0.2%^[216]	2
Russian flu	1977–1978	H1N1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2009 flu pandemic^[217]^[218]	2009–2010	H1N1/09	10–200 million^[219]	105,700–395,600^[220]	0.03%^[221]	N/A
Seasonal flu^{[t 1]}	Every year	mainly A/H3N2,A/H1N1, and B	5–15% (340–1000 million)^[222]	290–650,000/year^[223]	<0.1%^[224]	N/A

Classification	D ICD–10: J10, J11 ICD–9-CM: 487 OMIM: 614680 MeSH: D007251 DiseasesDB: 6791
External resources	MedlinePlus: 000080 eMedicine: med/1170 ped/3006 Patient UK: Influenza

2020 State of the Union Address
Date	February 4, 2020
Venue	House Chamber, United States Capitol
Location	Washington, D.C.
Type	State of the Union Address
Participants	Donald Trump

Fraud

If by Rudyard Kipling – Inspirational Poetry

If—

If – Rudyard Kipling (by John Hurt) with lyrics

Story 1: Progressive Panic Pandering Propaganda — Chinese Communist Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 or (COVID-19) Goes Global — What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Stronger — Are You In Fear of Your Life — If — Videos

If – Rudyard Kipling, Dennis Hopper on Johnny Cash Show

IF, Rudyard Kipling’s poem, recited by Sir Michael Caine

US working ‘aggressively’ to mitigate coronavirus in America: Alex Azar

CDC warns coronavirus outbreak will worsen

Tucker: Global leaders said coronavirus was under control

Ingraham: Sounding the alarm on coronavirus

[LIVE] Coronavirus: Real Time Counter, World Map, News

What Is Coronavirus?

Novel Coronavirus: The Facts

Novel Coronavirus (2019 nCoV 🦠 Outbreak 😷)

CoronaVirus – What’s The Truth? – Behind The Headlines – Part 1

Chinese scientists says COVID-19/coronavirus could have originated from government …

Coronavirus Special] “Systematic Problems with China’s Virus Research Labs” – Tim Trevan

US continues fearmongering as China battles coronavirus

COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19) – causes, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, pathology

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Autopsy Report Analysis by Dr. Mike Hansen

Coronavirus Epidemic Update 24: Infections in Italy, Transmissibility, COVID-19 Symptoms

The coronavirus conspiracy: is there a cover-up in China?

Influenza: An Update on the Disease and Laboratory Diagnosis [Hot Topic]

Coronavirus Epidemic Update 25: Vaccine Developments, Italy’s Response, and Mortality Rate Trends

Influenza (Flu) Explained Clearly – Diagnosis, Vaccine, Treatment, Pathology

Increase of influenza B seen with this year’s flu outbreak

The 2020 Flu Season So Far

Update: Public Health Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak — United States, February 24, 2020

Summary

Altmetric:

Citations:

Views:

COVID-19 Cases in the United States

CDC Public Health Response

Discussion

References

TO THE EDITOR:

Useful links

Media queries

Focus

Research

Case Report

Clinical Picture

Correspondence

Data sharing

Register to receive email updates:

Infographics

Comment

News

Editorial

Obituary

Novel Coronavirus Information Center

Introduction

Margaret Trexler Hessen, MD, Director, Point of Care, Elsevier

Expert guidance and commentary

COVID-19: Seeking reliable information amid uncertainty

By Ian Chuang, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Elsevier

JAMA Medical News Podcast: Coronavirus and Beyond: Responding to Biological Threats

6 of the most common coronavirus questions the media is asking

By Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, Professor and Chair, Clinical Laboratory Program, Texas State University | Feb 6, 2020

Interactive map: global disease outbreak experts

Video: Novel Coronavirus Update

Livestreamed on Feb 6, 2020

Key facts for clinicians

By Margaret Trexler Hessen, MD, Director, Point of Care, Elsevier | Updated Feb 21, 2020

Clinicians need reliable and current information to combat novel coronavirus

By Jonathan Temte, MD, PhD, Consultant, PracticeUpdate, Elsevier

Elsevier Clinical Solutions

Clinical Overviews on ClinicalKey

Clinical Skills for Nursing

Interprofessional Care Plans

Patient engagement resources

Video overview of Coronavirus from 3D4Medical – Watch now:

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)

Cause

Transmission

Nature of the disease

Geographical distribution

Risk for travellers