FreeRangeLawyer

Perhaps! The ordinance was actually declared unconstitutional years ago, and the City just kept on taking cars on the theory that it was a trial court decision and only bound the City in the one case where it was entered. Eventually the City made some narrow changes to the law to "fix" the problem identified by that decision (without really addressing the underlying issues) and kept on doing what it's doing.

But rest assured we plan to keep fighting until we've shut this program down. If the City doesn't follow a decision, there are things we can do to make sure they come around. One way or another this does have to end.

Let me put it this way: They're definitely not going out of their way to follow the law. The common thread running through the city's view of the law is that they want to maximize their ability to take property from innocent people -- even if that requires some "creative" legal thinking. And that's hardly surprising given civil forfeiture is how they fund their budget.

Good question! It's more a series of decisions than a single thing that I can point to. I've been a libertarian all my life -- mostly because I don't like being told what to do and don't like seeing other people told what to do. In college I actually studied english literature, with an anthropology minor, but when I graduated I wanted to do something a bit less bookish and more engaged with the world. Law seemed like a good middle ground; still intellectually interesting but outside of the library. I sometimes describe law as "applied philosophy," and that's exactly what attracted me to it.

After law school, I spent two years working with federal judges (Alex Kozinski, out in California, and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court) and then three years at a big law firm. I liked the law firm I worked at, but the big law life wasn't for me. I wanted something where I felt passionate about what I was waking up to do every day. I'd been following IJ's work for a long time--and had worked there during law school--and it was just a natural place for me to pursue my passions.

Hah! No, I've never seen a civil forfeiture case trying to take worthless property. This is ultimately all about the money: If the property isn't valuable, there's no incentive for the government to take it. (Except maybe if the property is contraband -- drugs, guns, etc. -- but that's an entirely different subject.)

Though, relatedly, the government does often take stuff that is valuable and worth taking but not so valuable that it would be worthwhile to pay a lawyer to get it back. Lots of the cars seized by the city are worth no more than a couple thousand. Or, nationally, we see tons of roadside seizures of cash in amounts of $5,000 or less. Just to get your money back is going to cost you $5,000 in legal fees, so people are forced to give up without a fight. Mostly for that reason, civil forfeiture cases rarely go to court. (Part of what's fun about being at IJ is seeing the surprise of government attorneys when somebody actually fights back.)

What I mean is, for better or worse, law enforcement brutality isn't an issue that directly affects people who (1) have law degrees and (2) have the ability to tell their story in the media. Lots of the crappiest stuff that goes on in the world happens outside the light of legal and media scrutiny. Part of what we're doing at IJ is shining a light into parts of the world that don't normally benefit from that kind of scrutiny.