Law Enforcement Forced To Hand Over $41K It Seized From Businessman At Airport, Plus Another $10K In Legal Fees
from the felled-by-their-own-bullshittery dept
An unidentified Techdirt reader sends in the news that Arizona law enforcement is going to be handing over $10,000 to Madji Khaleq as a result of a failed asset forfeiture attempt. This would be in addition to the $41,870 the DEA already handed back to Khaleq -- every cent of the cash federal agents seized from him at the Tucson airport.
Khaleq had a legitimate reason to be carrying $40K in cash on him.
Court documents show Khaleq told the Drug Enforcement Administration agent who seized the money that he owned a convenience store and check-cashing business in Denver, as well as a wholesale electronics distributorship in California. He said he came to Tucson to buy a smoke shop on South 12th Avenue, but the deal fell through.But the DEA firmly believes cash = drugs even when there's no evidence pointing towards illicit sources or uses for the funds, so it relieved Khaleq of his burdensome bankroll. Local law enforcement then swooped in to claim its part in the haul… only to return it when Khaleq lawyered up.
Khaleq challenged the seizure in Pima County Superior Court and the Pima County Attorney’s Office withdrew its request for forfeiture of the money in November.The $10,000 in legal fees due Khaleq will come from the County Attorney's Office and a Tucson-based counter-narcotics task force. Apparently the DEA has washed its hands of the whole affair after giving Khaleq the money it took from him.
The government is unhappy to be paying a drug trafficker an additional $10,000. Oh, yeah. It still believes Khaleq is involved in drug trafficking despite losing this lawsuit and 10 grand in discretionary spending.
In the March 10 stipulation of dismissal, Deputy County Attorney Edward Russo said the $10,000 is not an admission that Khaleq has shown he is “entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs or damages in this action.”Also:
When asked if the County Attorney’s Office still suspected Khaleq of being involved in illicit activity, Johnson said: “Yes, we don’t just take money from people for no reason.”The hell you don't.
And that's not the full extent of the government's BS. During its fight to keep the uncharged Khaleq from recovering his money, the County Attorney's Office attempted to keep Khaleq as far away from his money and his Fifth Amendment rights as possible.
Russo had asked Aragon on Jan. 11 if the county could present a report on a federal investigation purportedly of Khaleq without Khaleq or his attorney present.Fortunately, a judge stepped in and prevented the government from further abusing Khaleq. Even when the government is clearly in the wrong, it still insists it's right. No admission of wrongdoing despite losing badly enough that the plaintiff was awarded legal fees on top of his original funds, and law enforcement still insists Khaleq is involved in illegal activity despite his lack of a rap sheet and zero evidence in hand to support its claims.
[Judge Gus] Aragon denied the request, saying that to grant the request “would violate basic concepts of fairness and due process.”
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: arizona, asset forfeiture, asset seizure, dea, law enforcement, madji khaleq
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, you see...
That's why you see boilerplate settlements in which no one admits wrongdoing, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, you see...
It can stop accusing Khaleq of having any involvement with drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read about a Russian years ago.
This is America at its worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I read about a Russian years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry about the last title.
Many apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry about the last title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punitive damages?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It belongs to the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It belongs to the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honesty
A truth without meaning. Sure you have a reason, and we know that reason is because you are greedy assholes that need a new tanning bed or slushie machine for the Department. One of these days some rookie is going to get a promotion because they seized enough cash to buy an in house dunkin donut shop!
Sure they are terrible reasons, but not the sort of reasons that Americans agree with.
So yea, we know there are reasons for what you do, we are just letting you know that we know... your reasons SUCK and are AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090816-cocaine-money.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason for forveiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No...!
Noooooooooooooo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically true
Which is true only in the sense that the usual 'We want the money that person is carrying' is a reason, it's just not one they'd be willing to admit to.
If you're a greedy sociopath and have the right to steal any amount of cash someone happens to be carrying so long as you are willing to claim that it's related to some vague 'crime', why wouldn't you rob anyone that happens to commit the heinous crime of 'carrying funds in sight of an officer'? Best case scenario, you get to keep the money and use it to buy something nice for yourself or the department, worst case you have to hand it back over, but in neither case are you paying or otherwise penalized in any way, so why not grab it all?
While it's disgusting that even at this point they continue to insist that they did nothing wrong, it's hardly surprising. They can't exactly come out and admit that they stole the money just because they could after all, so of course they're going to continue to insist that the judgement doesn't matter, he was and continues to be guilty, they just had to return the money anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically true
What reality would we prefer. That the police are government are so deluded that think they can do no wrong. Or that they are being trained and taught to treat everyone like a foreign enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technically true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The noblest reason of all:
Yes, we can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero evidence?
Sometimes you have to choose. It's either your "land of the free" or your "home of the brave". He has picked "brave". Let's see how far it will get him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MUST BE a TRRRRIST/drug dealer/child molester/hacker/sovereign/somethin´
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and that sh!t costs money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
those with noise cannons on the top!
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
which is a true statement. If you take out the double negative it reads: "we do just take money from people for any reason."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This always bugs me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no covet neighbors goods
no bear false witness
we don't need no stinking badges
because all Christians must hang
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to Arizona
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, the County Attorney’s Office is technically correct, the best kind of correct!
They did have a reason, that reason being that $41,870 is a lot of money and they want it to be theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]