Judge Pushes Burden Of Proof Back On DEA Agents Who Seized $11,000 From Traveling College Student
from the recreational-drug-use-is-not-the-same-thing-as-drug-trafficking dept
This could be fun.
Last February, DEA agents took $11,000 from college student Charles Clarke. The funds were to be used to continue his education. The DEA, however, had other plans for the money.
Deciding that Clarke's one-way ticket, odor of marijuana smoke and the inability to instantly prove all of the $11,000 was obtained legitimately, the DEA seized it. Good thing it did, considering there were 13 law enforcement agencies expecting a percentage of the take.
Clarke was initially charged with assault because he struggled to prevent DEA agents from separating him from the cash he says he spent five years saving. That charge was dropped. No other charges were brought. No contraband or weapons were found on his person.
In asset forfeiture cases, those whose property has been seized by the government must challenge the seizure and provide proof of its legitimate origin. All the government has to do to keep the money is wait the challenge out. In a large percentage of cases, the seizure is never contested. The government has unlimited resources. Those challenging forfeitures do not. In fact, they have even less to work with, thanks to the government's prior actions, and fighting seizures can be incredibly expensive.
Fortunately for Clarke, a judge has flipped the script.
Clarke’s lawyers asked for documents from the government with the intent to prove there are constitutional problems with the practice and that it gives police a profit-driven motive to seize property and funds.The burden of proof has been shifted back to where it always should have been, especially when seizures continue without accompanying criminal charges. The government can no longer simply claim Clarke's ticket, odor and lack of receipts are indicative of illegal activity. It has been ordered to show its work. This will be difficult because, given the lack of charges against Clarke, it most likely has nothing to present to the judge in the way of evidence.
The U.S. attorneys were not able to give all the documents to Clarke’s team and so they took the issue up with Judge Bertelsman. He decide to split the case into two parts:
First; the U.S. attorneys have to prove they have grounds to keep Clarke’s money. I.e., they have to prove that Clarke made the money from drug dealing.
Second; if the government proves the money came from drugs, Clarke’s team will have to argue against the issue of civil asset forfeiture itself. I.e., arguing that the practice is profit-driven or worse.
If it somehow manages to round up some evidence proving its "guilty money" theory, it's still not in the clear. It will then have to defend the idea of civil asset forfeiture if Clarke's lawyers sufficiently demonstrate to the court the program's nasty side effects.
But it's the first part that's the most important. Given the fact that government agencies can seize property without securing convictions, orders like this one force the government to come up with better evidence than "one-way ticket" or "marijuana odor." The DEA must now find some way to connect the money it took to criminal activity, something agencies that participate in forfeiture programs don't have much experience in doing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, burden of proof, charles clarke, civil asset forfeiture, dea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The only crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only crime
- Frank Herbert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only crime
In all major socializing forces you will find an underlying movement to gain and maintain power through the use of words. From witch doctor to priest to bureaucrat it is all the same. A governed populace must be conditioned to accept power-words as actual things, to confuse the symbolized system with the tangible universe. In the maintenance of such a power structure, certain symbols are kept out of the reach of common understanding -- symbols such as those dealing with economic manipulation or those which define the local interpretation of sanity.
Symbol-secrecy of this form leads to the development of fragmented sublanguages, each being a signal that its users are accumulating some form of power. With this insight into a power process, our Imperial Security Force must be ever alert to the formation of sub-languages.
-Lecture to the Arrakeen War College by, The Princess Irulan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only crime
/h
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burden of proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Your honor, the money was equipped with a small spy camera, and repeatedly ignored my instructions to turn the recording device off."
There. Obstruction of justice, illegal recording of a civil servant (or whatever that charge is).
.... Okay these stories are rotting my brain. Totally unbidden, I pictured the court hearings shifting from civil asset forfeiture... to whether the money has a copyright interest in the recording of police officers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money is fungible ... and also the defendant!
Your honor, we can prove that some money, not necessarily the defendant, was loaned to the defendant by this kilo of marijuana. To that end, the defendant is in some portion "drug's money".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst-case scenario here for the prosecution isn't losing the money in question, but a legally-binding precedent.
So if they don't have proof that the money's from selling drugs (and I don't think they do, considering there weren't any charges), they'll probably go for a "have the money back" settlement offer.
After attempting to get the judge's demands overruled. That's pretty likely too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More likely "have some money back". That's so unfair: they robbed it fair and square and now they have to give it back? They had to take sacrifices: it takes a lot of dedication to stay away from all sources of learning so that you can fit below the bar on intelligence tests. You have to discipline and starve your mind.
And now they don't get to keep the rewards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil assets
What does not make sense is how it is OK for the government to reap the proceeds of criminal actions.
So it's OK for the government to benefit from crime but not OK for me to benefit from crime.
If I ran the government i would encourage crime, a 100% tax rate is a gravy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil assets
this will stop those ASSETS from contributing to the EVIL of police corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil assets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil assets
Me too,that's not the problem. The problem is when the cops steal the money before anyone has been found guilty, and then keep it or some part of it even when a conviction fails to materialize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new case, new seizure, ... rinse & repeat
then we would also have the inevitable appeal too so that the kid might if he loses at appeal also have to give back $11K which would mean he's out 22K + costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One way tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That barely covers one semester.
Maybe it is illegal to sidestep the college loan industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scenes I'd like to see
2. The judge orders (I know this probably isn't realistic legally, but I'm in wish-land here) the original plus triple damages be refunded to the student and that, just as the student's personal money was confiscated, documentation must be presented that the refund was docked from the personal salaries (and that it will not be compensated in any other way) of all the LEO's directly responsible for trampling on the Constitution.
3. Each person has to present a written report to the judge explaining how that felt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pictures of Match-stick men...
After all, we cannot have the most lucrative political scam (business model) in 50 years being ended simply due to the sense of justice of one silly non-team-player judge.
Looks like its once again time to put the Five Eyes Surveillance Industry results to work, doing what it does best - blackmail - make that man a team player.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No I don't agree with the DEA. But if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, try telling me its not a duck. And I can put you in touch with a great investment opportunity in Nigeria if only you'll send me 100,000 in cash today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Per the law you're innocent till proven guilty. We're not supposed to punish innocent people and proof requires that a) the burden of proof lies on the accuser and b) the evidence needs to be substantial and verifiable.
Per common USG and law enforcement practice, if you squint very hard, spin around twice, then stand on one leg, it looks like a duck. I'll leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fascists really know their business. Fear really is the killer of trust, decency and humane interaction and paves the way for the introduction of tyranny and corruption.
I'll bet you used to be a champion of other's rights before you became scared shitless of the government bogeymen.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]