The Fifth Amendment Integrity Act

Art. 1.

For the purposes of this Act:

1. Law Enforcement Agency: Any police department, sheriff's office, state patrol, or any other state or local agency authorized by law to enforce statutes and seize property.

2. Civil Asset Forfeiture: An in rem proceeding where the property itself is the defendant and can be forfeited to the state without the criminal conviction of the owner.

3. Seizure: The act of taking possession of property by the government.

4. Forfeiture: The permanent transfer of title of property to the government.

Art. 2.

1. Criminal Conviction Required: The state is prohibited from forfeiting any private property unless the owner of said property has been convicted of a criminal offense by a court of law, and the property is explicitly proven to be the proceeds or instrument of said crime.

2. Abolition of Civil Procedure: The legal mechanism of Civil Asset Forfeiture is hereby abolished. All forfeiture proceedings shall be criminal in nature (in personam).

3. Standard of Proof: The government bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the property is linked to the crime. The burden of proof shall never shift to the property owner to prove the innocence of their assets.

Art. 3.

1. Temporary Seizure: Law enforcement may temporarily seize property only if:

a) It is incident to a lawful arrest; OR

b) They possess a specific judicial warrant describing the property to be seized.

2. Prompt Return: If criminal charges are not filed within 30 days of the seizure, or if the charges are dropped or result in acquittal, all seized property must be returned to the owner within 5 business days. The state is liable for any damage to the property or loss of value during custody.

3. Pre-Trial Bond: Owners have the right to post a bond to retrieve seized vehicles or business assets pending trial, unless the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the property is dangerous or illegal per se (e.g., contraband).

Art. 4.

1. De-Funding Incentive: It is strictly prohibited for any Law Enforcement Agency, prosecutor's office, or judicial body to retain proceeds from forfeited assets or to use them to supplement their own budget.

2. General Fund Mandate: All currency and proceeds from the sale of forfeited property must be deposited directly into the state's General Fund or a designated fund for Public Education.

3. Anti-Circumvention (Federal Loophole): State Law Enforcement Agencies are prohibited from transferring seized property to federal agencies (Equitable Sharing Program) for the purpose of bypassing the protections of this Act. Any official attempting such transfer commits a Class A Misdemeanor and shall be personally liable for the value of the property.

Art. 5.

1. Severability: If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision.

2. Supremacy: This Act supersedes all prior statutes or regulations concerning asset forfeiture.

3. Tax Exception: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the administrative seizure of assets for the satisfaction of delinquent taxes, fines, or court judgments, provided that such seizures follow standard civil procedure and are not related to the forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (EXPOSÉ)

1. THE PROBLEM

Under current "Civil Asset Forfeiture" laws, police can seize your cash, car, or home on the mere suspicion of a crime. You do not have to be charged, let alone convicted. To get your property back, you must prove your own innocence in a costly civil battle. Worse, the seizing agency often gets to keep up to 100% of the proceeds, creating a perverse "profit motive" that encourages officers to target citizens for revenue rather than public safety.

2. THE OBJECTIVE

This Act restores the constitutional principle of "Due Process." It mandates that no property can be taken forever without a criminal conviction. It shifts the burden of proof back to the government. Crucially, it removes the profit motive by ensuring that no police department can pad its budget with money taken from citizens, thereby reorienting law enforcement toward fighting crime rather than collecting revenue.

3. EXPECTED IMPACT

Adoption of this Act will drastically reduce predatory stops and seizures. It protects innocent property owners. While this may remove a revenue stream for law enforcement agencies, public safety is a core function of government that must be funded transparently through taxation, not through the seizure of private property. Reliance on forfeiture creates a conflict of interest that this Act permanently resolves.