Civil asset forfeiture in Texas is a legal process that allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being involved in criminal activity without necessarily charging the owner with a crime. This practice is governed by Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Critics argue that it infringes on property rights and due process, while proponents believe it is essential for disrupting criminal enterprises.

In Texas, the burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is lower than that required for a criminal conviction. For civil forfeiture, law enforcement only needs to meet the standard of 'preponderance of the evidence.' This contrasts with criminal cases, where the state must prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the individual committed a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture is an In Rem proceeding, meaning the case is against the property itself rather than the individual. The government sues the property in civil court, leading to cases with names like The State of Texas v. one 2005 Ford Mustang.

One notable example of civil asset forfeiture in Texas involves a man named Javier Gonzalez, who was traveling with $10,000 in cash to purchase a used car. Despite not being charged with any crime, law enforcement officers seized his money, suspecting it was tied to illegal activities. Gonzalez faced significant legal challenges in trying to reclaim his money, as he had to prove that the cash was not connected to any criminal activity.

Property owners, seeking to reclaim their property, are not entitled to a court-appointed attorney and must hire their own legal representation.

Step	Description
Seizure	Law enforcement seizes property suspected of being involved in criminal activity.
Legal Standard	The state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is connected to criminal activity.
In Rem Proceedings	The case is against the property itself, not the owner.
Challenges for Owners	Owners must hire their own legal representatives and prove their property's innocence.

Past legislative efforts to reform civil asset forfeiture laws in Texas have focused on increasing transparency and protecting property rights. House Bill 928 from the 88th legislative session, introduced by State Rep. Harold Dutton, aimed to require a criminal conviction before forfeiture could occur, but it was left pending in the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and was never voted on.

Another bill, House Bill 1874 by State Rep. Candy Noble, sought to require law enforcement to pay damages and allow judges to award attorney’s fees to property owners in cases where the person could prove the property was not connected to any criminal activity. Although it passed out of committee, it was never considered by the full House.

Opponents of civil asset forfeiture reforms including the Sheriffs' Association of Texas reforms argue that the practice is essential for dismantling criminal enterprises and preventing crime.

However, critics argue that forfeiture flips the principle of being innocent until proven guilty on its head, raising constitutional concerns.

Organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and Institute of Justice support reforms to civil asset forfeiture laws due to concerns over property rights and due process. They argue that the current system allows law enforcement to seize assets without sufficient proof of criminal activity, which can lead to significant abuses. They emphasize that the burden of proof should be on the state to demonstrate that the property is connected to a crime, rather than on the property owner to prove their innocence.