Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule in Civil Forfeiture Proceedings

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture proceedings. As a result, any evidence which is the product of an illegal search or seizure must be excluded in the forfeiture hearing. See United States v. $277,000.00 U.S. Currency, 941 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1991).

In United States v. One (1) 1971 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, 508 F.2d 351, 351-52 (9th Cir. 1974), the court found that “evidence derived from a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded at a forfeiture proceeding,” but “so long as the requirements for forfeiture were proven by evidence not tainted by the seizure, the contraband could properly be forfeited.”

The Fourth Amendment protections for civil asset forfeiture proceedings are codified in Rule G(8)(a), which provides that “a party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the [property’s] seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence.”

The courts might be represented with a problem concerning whether a ruling on a motion to suppress should proceed answers to the government’s special interrogatories on standing. Rule G(6)(c) states that the government is not required to respond to a claimant’s motion to dismiss under Rule G(8)(b) until after the claimant has answered the government’s interrogatories relating to standing.

Rule G(8)(c)(ii)(A) also requires that a government motion to strike be decided before a claimant’s motion to dismiss. The rules, however, do not require a similar sequencing for a pending motion to suppress under Rule G(8)(a).

Attorney for Civil Asset Forfeiture Involving Suppression of Evidence

If your civil asset forfeiture case involves evidence illegally gathered under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, then contact an attorney at Sammis Law Firm.

We represent clients after a warrantless search that occurs at the airport, a port of entry, or during a roadside interdiction. If law enforcement obtained a search or seizure warrant, we also represent clients during proceedings to suppress the evidence seized because there was no probable cause for the seizure warrant, or because the affiant make false statements or material omissions.

Contact a civil asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm by calling 813-250-0500.

Suppressing Considerations of the Amount of Money in Dispute

The courts have found related Fourth Amendment protections applicable in civil forfeiture actions. For example, courts cannot consider the amount of money in dispute in the forfeiture action when that money is the fruit of an unlawful search. United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1063, 1065 (9th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on another ground as stated in United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency, 303 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002). For instance, in United States v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008), the court found it “cannot consider the amount of currency that the government illegally seized.”

When the exclusionary rule applies, the courts may “recognize that illegally seized property consists of currency,” $493,850.00, 518 F.3d at 1166, but “illegally seized property,” including the money itself, must “not be introduced as evidence in a forfeiture proceeding,” $191,910.00, 16 F.3d at 1063.

In $277,000.00, 941 F.2d at 902, the court held that “the district court was correct in excluding the illegally-seized money” from a civil forfeiture action as fruit of an unlawful detention.

The courts allow the application of the exclusionary rule in civil forfeiture cases because otherwise, civil forfeiture allows “the government to seize . . . property without any predeprivation judicial process and to obtain forfeiture of the property even when the owner is personally innocent.” Leonard, 580 U.S. at 1179.

Policy Reasons for the Exclusionary Rule in Civil Asset Forfeiture

Although modern civil forfeiture statutes are designed to punish the owner of property, the government may “do so civilly” and avoid many of the “procedural protections that accompany criminal proceedings.

For this reason, the civil forfeiture regime is ripe for abuse. Those abuses are disproportionately likely to affect the “groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.” Id. at 1180.

This quasi-criminal regime carries with it significant constitutional and due process concerns. To counter those concerns, the suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence is an essential safeguard against government abuse in a civil forfeiture scheme otherwise rife with constitutional concerns.

The government maintains a financial incentive to prevail in civil forfeiture actions. For this reason, the possibility of exclusionary sanctions can be effective in deterring law enforcement agents from engaging in illegal searches and seizures. $186,416.00, 590 F.3d at 950.

The failure to apply the exclusionary rule effectively rewards the government for its Fourth Amendment violation. $493,850.00, 518 F.3d at 1165. The exclusionary rule in civil forfeiture cases also “protects judicial integrity by ensuring that the courts do not serve as a conduit through which the government fills its coffers at the expense of those whose constitutional rights its agents violated.” $186,416.00, 590 F.3d at 950.

Consequences of the Claimant Winning a Motion to Suppress

If the claimant prevails during a motion to suppress, the government may still aim to prove that the property seized is subject to forfeiture, but it must do so using “independently derived evidence.” Supp. R. G(8)(a). For example, in $277,000.00, 941 F.2d at 902, the court held that the “mere fact that property was illegally seized does not immunize that property from forfeiture.”

This article was last updated on Monday, July 20, 2026.