Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize a person’s property without charging—let alone convicting—the owner of a crime. Across the country, this practice has raised serious concerns about due process, property rights, and the proper limits of government power.
In West Virginia, Delegate Charles Horst has emerged as one of the Legislature’s most consistent and courageous advocates for ending civil asset forfeiture and restoring constitutional protections for citizens. His work reflects a belief that public safety and individual liberty are not opposing forces, and that justice requires both.
I spoke with Delegate Charles Horst (R – Berkeley, 095) about why civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with West Virginia values, how reform can strengthen trust in law enforcement, and what it will take to finally end this practice in the Mountain State.
You’ve been one of the strongest voices in the Legislature calling for the elimination of civil asset forfeiture in West Virginia. What first convinced you that this practice is fundamentally unjust and in need of reform?
I became aware of civil asset forfeiture long before being elected—at least the principles behind it. I campaigned on protecting our liberties, and after the election, I started looking at issues that were anti-liberty. Civil asset forfeiture rose to the top of my list because it undermines our justice system and due process under the State Constitution, and it also undermines law enforcement credibility.
For readers who may be unfamiliar with the issue, how does civil asset forfeiture differ from criminal forfeiture—and why does that distinction matter when it comes to due process and property rights?
The difference between civil asset forfeiture and criminal forfeiture is primarily the difference in the burden required to take someone’s assets. Criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil court only requires “more likely than not.” A fine for speeding requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to impose a penalty, yet the state can seize your assets in civil court by simply convincing a judge that it is more likely than not that criminal activity occurred.
I would also point out that the West Virginia Supreme Court, in Dean v. West Virginia, found that civil asset forfeiture is punitive in nature and, in my opinion, should require a criminal conviction. Once you understand that distinction, it becomes obvious how the process undermines our judicial system, due process, property rights, and the credibility of law enforcement.
Critics often describe civil asset forfeiture as “policing for profit.” Based on your research and experience, how does the current system create troubling incentives for government agencies?
This is a great question. West Virginia’s contraband forfeiture law, where civil asset forfeiture is used, was created to fight the war on drugs, and in the process, it trampled liberty. When law enforcement receives direct benefits or revenue from policing, there is a natural tendency to pursue civil asset forfeiture for revenue. That can involve profiling for traffic stops, which often include a canine sniff. Any alert then ends your Fourth Amendment protections against a search of your vehicle. I would add that this undermines law enforcement credibility.
This is a good time to mention Dean v. West Virginia again. The question before the Court was whether a forfeiture can be viewed as an excessive fine, and the opinion was yes. In Chief Justice Ketchum’s last paragraph in his concurrence, he said he was concerned the contraband forfeiture law may be unconstitutional under the following West Virginia Code language and Article XII, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution:
Ten percent of the proceeds shall be tendered to the office of the prosecuting attorney, which initiated the forfeiture proceeding; the balance shall be deposited in a special law-enforcement investigation fund. The fund may be placed in any interest-bearing depository insured by an agency of the federal government. The fund shall be administered by the chief of the law-enforcement agency that seized the forfeited property. 12-5. Support of free schools. The Legislature shall provide for the support of free schools by appropriating thereto the interest of the invested “School Fund,” the net proceeds of all forfeitures and fines accruing to this state under the laws thereof and by general taxation of persons and property or otherwise. It shall also provide for raising in each county or district, by the authority of the people thereof, such a proportion of the amount required for the support of free schools therein as shall be prescribed by general laws.
I should add the legislative findings of the contraband forfeiture act that, in my opinion, show the Legislature clearly knew they were writing code that was unconstitutional:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the seizure and sale of items under the provisions of this article is not contemplated to be a forfeiture as the same is used in article twelve, section five of the West Virginia Constitution and to the extent that such seizure and sale may be found to be such a forfeiture, the Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proceeds from a seizure and sale under this article is not part of net proceeds as the same is contemplated by such article twelve, section five of the West Virginia Constitution.
I would also note that there appears to be little oversight of these funds, as the sheriff or police chief seems to have full discretion over how they are spent.
West Virginia has deep constitutional and cultural roots in personal liberty, private property, and fairness under the law. How does civil asset forfeiture conflict with those values?
I pointed out many of the issues above, so I will be brief. In my opinion, the Contraband Forfeiture Act is unconstitutional as described above and certainly does not reflect what West Virginians support. The very idea of punishing a person for suspected crimes without a corresponding criminal conviction flies in the face of our justice system, due process, and the property rights of West Virginians and their culture. I should add that this holds true nationally.
Supporters of forfeiture argue it is necessary to combat drug trafficking and organized crime. How do you respond to that claim, and what evidence suggests we can fight crime effectively without sacrificing due process?
House Bill 2383 from the 2025 session would repeal the contraband forfeiture act and create the criminal forfeiture act, putting forfeitures in criminal court. Seized property would be handled by the same judge who handles the criminal case. Upon a conviction, the judge would then hear evidence of how the assets were linked to the crime and rule on the forfeiture. This does not end the use of forfeiture; it simply adds guardrails to protect the innocent.
This bill also adds protections for innocent owners whose property might be seized by placing the burden on the state, rather than on the innocent owner. Nothing stops seized property from being addressed in a plea agreement if the owner agrees to forfeiture of the assets.
There is also language to prevent the state from seizing property and then turning the forfeiture over to the feds to trample states’ rights. As written, the bill would require $20,000.00 in cash to be eligible for the feds to adopt the forfeiture, allowing federal involvement for cases that would likely cross state lines.
The last big point is that it directs the proceeds to general revenue, where they can be appropriated to education as the State Constitution requires. In short, nothing in the bill prohibits forfeiture, so nothing stops law enforcement from doing its job. It just puts up protective guardrails and restores trust in law enforcement. While some in leadership in the law enforcement community are unhappy with me over this issue, I rest much easier when officers have come forward to tell me I am doing the right thing. West Virginians deserve no less
What does available data or testimony reveal about whois most often affected by civil asset forfeiture in practice, particularly in rural or working-class communities like many in West Virginia?
Civil asset forfeiture disproportionately affects low-income individuals and communities of color, who often do not have the funds to contest a forfeiture. Many seizures involve small amounts of cash (the median is $1,200). Hiring a lawyer when small amounts are involved will cost more than what could be recovered, so in these cases, the individual will cut their losses rather than lose more money.
Small business owners and immigrants who often deal in cash are vulnerable to highway interdiction. There was such a case in Berkeley County, where I live. An individual (with California plates) who spoke a foreign language was pulled over for speeding. The officer saw a wad of cash in his wallet, and the investigation was on. After being detained, having his car towed to the sheriff’s department, and having his phone searched, he was released without his cash and left penniless to fend for himself. An attorney loaned him some cash, and he lived in his car on the streets of Martinsburg for over a month in November before the attorney was able to get his cash returned. Ultimately, no charges were filed related to the seizure. This was a classic case of policing for profit and using a K9 alert to circumvent his Fourth Amendment rights, even when no drugs were found.
I would recommend folks take a look at the study done by the Institute for Justice on Philadelphia’s forfeiture program. They had seizures of as little as $20.00 cash. Only 1 in 4 were found guilty or pleaded guilty to a crime, yet 69% lost their property. It’s disheartening, but there are countless examples we could spend hours discussing.
Several states have reformed or abolished civil asset forfeiture, often requiring a criminal conviction before property can be seized. What lessons should West Virginia lawmakers take from those examples?
West Virginia should take notice of states that have done so. We, as a state, pride ourselves on our liberties and freedoms; however, upon closer look, we have lost them—most people are only aware of it when it hits them. What most don’t realize is that we have given up liberty for a false sense of security, and civil asset forfeiture is a great example of what happens.
If West Virginia were to eliminate civil asset forfeiture, what alternatives or safeguards would you support to ensure criminals are still held accountable, while innocent citizens are protected?
I have answered this in a previous question, where I described what HB 2383 would accomplish. If we put the proper guardrails in place, such as HB 2383, we could take assets from the bad guys while protecting the innocent. My intention is to preserve a process to take assets from bad actors while ensuring we have proper protections in place for law-abiding West Virginians and restore trust in law enforcement. This bill has very little, if any, effect on law enforcement. Any additional burden is placed on the prosecutor’s office by way of process
Finally, what role can everyday West Virginians, lawmakers, and civil society organizations play in building the momentum needed to end civil asset forfeiture once and for all?
This is a great question. When citizens or organizations get involved en masse, legislators pay attention. Contact your legislators and politely ask that they support my bill. Ask your local sheriff, municipal police chief, and prosecutors to support ending the contraband forfeiture act and replacing it with criminal forfeiture. If they do not support change, ask why they would not add protections for the innocent.
From my research, this issue is at least an 80/20 issue with the people. I feel confident that if the bill comes to the floor for a vote, it will pass, and speaking with some Senators, I feel it would pass the Senate as well. Make your voice heard. Contact those who represent you in person, by phone, or by email, at town hall events, etc.—and always do so respectfully.
