Earlier today, I posted the most recent piece in a series highlighting the insidious and lawless practice of civil asset forfeiture being abused by police departments and prosecutors across America in the post: Quote of the Day – An Incredible Statement from the City Attorney of Las Cruces, New Mexico. I suggest reading that before checking out the rest of this post.

Considering the fact that civil asset forfeiture has rightly entered the national spotlight as of late, the stance of Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, on the matter is extremely important. Particularly if the Wall Street Journal is correct and her office had been aggressive in utilizing this practice to seize funds under her oversight.

The WSJ reports that:

The early reporting on President Obama ’s choice to be the next Attorney General is that few in Washington know much about her. That may be one of the reasons Mr. Obama picked Loretta Lynch after last week’s election rout. Barring some future revelations, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York isn’t likely to stir a partisan brawl with the new Republican Senate.

As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.

It’s unclear to me how much of that $904 million was related to civil asset forfeitures in the same spirit as the egregious examples I and so many others have highlighted in recent years. Nevertheless, tough questions certainly should be asked.