On 27 February, an article from Lane Powell PC said that, despite a recent Supreme Court decision, which limited the scope of civil asset forfeiture, the controversial legal process whereby law enforcement officers can seize property they suspect was involved in illegal activities, civil forfeiture is far from finished. The issue considered by the Supreme Court in the case was whether there are limitations to the amount of assets that a state is allowed to seize. In that case, the accused had sold a small amount of heroin to an undercover cop. He was charged and convicted, and his crimes carried a monetary fine of up to $10,000. The state then brought a civil action to seize his Range Rover, which he’d used to transport drugs, but which had been purchased with nearly $50,000 in legitimate funds from an inheritance. However, the article points out, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the practice of civil asset forfeiture is constitutional – the new ruling simply means that the amount of the seizure can’t be unreasonably large compared to the underlying crime.