Case Info & Legal Team“Asset forfeiture is abusive and fundamentally unjust, just as Seretse’s case highlights. He served this country in the military, he didn’t do anything wrong, he wasn’t charged with any crime, but the government took his car anyway. That’s not right, and Kansas’ forfeiture laws are to blame. At the same time, we’re happy the government eventually did the right thing and dismissed this case. We just wish they hadn’t seized his car to begin with,” said Sam MacRoberts, KJI litigation director.”
Seretse Young, a disabled U.S. Army veteran, was not charged with a crime, yet the government used civil forfeiture laws to take and try to keep his car. With the help of Kansas Justice Institute, Mr. Young successfully fought back.
In July 2023, the government used civil forfeiture laws to seize Seretse Young’s car even though he was never charged with a crime. In fact, Mr. Young wasn’t even in the car when the government took it. The car is owned solely by Mr. Young, but his wife was driving when Junction City Police allege that she failed to stop the vehicle during a traffic stop. But under Kansas’ civil forfeiture laws, “a spouse binds the person’s spouse, by any act or omission,” allowing the government to punish an innocent person for the alleged crimes of their spouse. Essentially, the government argued that if Mrs. Young had allegedly committed a crime while she was driving the car, then Mr. Young was bound by her acts and the government was allowed to punish him by taking his car—even though he hadn’t done anything wrong. According to the government, innocence is no defense. Mr. Young teamed up with Kansas Justice Institute, a free public interest law firm that protects property rights statewide, to fight the civil forfeiture case.
Kansas civil forfeiture laws allowed the government to keep Mr. Young’s car as a punishment for the alleged crimes of his wife. In May 2024, KJI filed with the court an answer on behalf of Mr. Young arguing he was an innocent owner and that punishing a man by seizing his property as punishment for the alleged crimes of his spouse violated the Kansas and Federal constitutions. After the answer was filed, the government chose to dismiss the case and return the car immediately “free of any fines, fees, or penalties.”
After nearly eleven months, Mr. Young now has his car back. Because Kansas civil forfeiture laws stack the deck in favor of the government, Mr. Young didn’t have the car from July 2023 until June 2024.
Kansas civil forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property and hold it for months or years on end, oftentimes forcing property owners to expend time and money navigating a complex system that requires them to prove their own innocence. In cases like this one, the government even argues innocence is no defense and will seek to forfeit the property of those who have not even been accused of committing a crime. For many property owners, the time and legal fees required to regain their property are simply too much and they give up.
“Asset forfeiture is abusive and fundamentally unjust, just as Seretse’s case highlights. He served this country in the military, he didn’t do anything wrong, he wasn’t charged with any crime, but the government took his car anyway. That’s not right, and Kansas’ forfeiture laws are to blame. At the same time, we’re happy the government eventually did the right thing and dismissed this case. We just wish they hadn’t seized his car to begin with,” Sam MacRoberts, KJI litigation director, said.
Mr. Young’s victory is a rarity. According to an Americans for Prosperity Foundation analysis of Kansas-specific data, approximately 90% of seized property is never returned to their owners.
This case is a part of KJI’s campaign to end the abuse of civil forfeiture in Kansas.
Christopher Joseph and Carrie Parker of Joseph, Hollander & Craft joined KJI on this case.
