Sheriff And Deputy Somehow Manage To Screw Up Forfeiture Badly Enough To Be Indicted On Extortion Charges
from the a-miraculous-aligning-of-the-stars,-coupled-with-brazen-stupidity dept
In what I'm sure is a very confusing situation for Sheriff Bob Colbert and Deputy Jeff Gragg, prosecutors are bringing conspiracy and extortion charges against the pair for an act normally deemed perfectly acceptable. (via HuffPo)
The state's multicounty grand jury on Thursday indicted Colbert, 60, and Capt. Jeff Gragg, 48, on three felony counts. The grand jury also called for Colbert's immediate suspension and eventual removal from public office on misconduct grounds.The situation is not unlike hundreds of others that have occurred over the years. Colbert and Gragg stopped a motorist, found cash and drug paraphernalia, seized the cash and then proceeded to not file criminal charges against the driver.
The sheriff and Gragg are accused in the indictment of extorting a motorist and his passenger into disclaiming any interest in $10,000 seized from a 2014 Dodge Avenger during the traffic stop on Dec. 13, 2014.
That is civil asset forfeiture. The money is "guilty" even if the person carrying it isn't. The only thing out of the ordinary was the officers' decision to tell the people in the car that they wouldn't be bringing charges -- not if they handed over the $10,000.
The motorist at one point told the sheriff's captain he was on parole and asked what he needed to do to keep out of jail, according to the indictment. “Gragg responded the only way ... Wallace was going to go home that day was to disclaim his ownership in the $10,000,” according to the indictment.Nifty trick, that. If you can get a "perp" to disclaim ownership of seized property, it makes it much easier to keep it. No challenges in court. No one suddenly dropping by the courtroom with evidence of the money's legal origin.
Gragg two days later opened a sheriff's drug forfeiture account in the Wagoner County treasurer's office and deposited the $10,000, according to the indictment.
As the sheriff's attorney points out, the law normally allows law enforcement to carry out this form of theft.
The sheriff's attorney called the traffic stop in 2014 a routine drug interdiction and a lawful cash seizure of drug funds.What you can't do is demand someone disclaim ownership in exchange for a Get Out of Jail Free card. You also can't delete booking records, which has also been alleged.
“The funds are not missing and are accounted for,” she said. “The sheriff's office timely deposited every cent of this money in the county's treasurer account as required by state law.”
But this does show just how sketchy the entire process of asset forfeiture is. Because most states have no conviction requirement for asset seizures, the same thing happens day after day across the nation. The only difference between legalized theft and an illegal act is the officer's choice of words.
Challenging a seizure isn't an easy process and the success rate of those who do isn't very encouraging. It also can be very expensive -- sometimes costing more than the amount recovered. There's simply no excuse for making an easy job (seizing and keeping cash) even easier. In all likelihood, the Sheriff's office wouldn't have pursued charges anyway, considering it already had the cash.
For far too many law enforcement agencies, the introduction of any semblance of due process is cutting "guilty" people and their "guilty" money far too much slack. It also lowers the chance of them holding onto the money. So, it's considered to be a waste of law enforcement resources, even if most officials will never go on record as holding this belief. In this case though, all the officers needed to do to hold onto the money was take it and SHUT UP. But they couldn't resist lording their power over a parolee with $10,000 in his vehicle. And now it might cost them something far more valuable: their freedom.
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, bob colbert, jeff gragg, law enforcement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Call me cynical but...
No, no it won't
That they were actually indited is insanely unlikely, the odds of the prosecution being willing to treat the accused as they would anyone else doing the same, rather than deliberately making as weak a case as possible to let them off the hook is even more unlikely.
While I would love to be proven wrong here numerous past examples of the special treatment anyone with a badge gets in court has me very strongly expecting that they'll get off with a wrist slap at worst, and if they do end up fired their union will throw a fit until they're hired back to their previous positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call me cynical but...
But I bet that's not the only thing: it looks to me like the motorist is open to a charge of making a bribe. Betcha that doesn't get bargained down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call me cynical but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Call me cynical but...
Never underestimate the ability of police to escape responsibility by dumping it on the citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you have in the States with asset forfeiture is beyond comical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly this is what's considered "law enforcement" in the US these days and it's only getting worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane
What the holy fuck were they thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insane
There really is no good excuse for such blatant theft by those that should be tasked with reducing crime, not committing it under cover of a badge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Insane
If that is not rehabilitation, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what we clearly see is the true point of having law enforcement. this has been the point all along, but the recklessness of it now shows there is no need anymore to play games. just grab peoples' stuff if they aren't wealthy enough to have the right connections.
we are canada's mexico. we don't even try to hide it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They deserve to be in jail
Happy to see them go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They deserve to be in jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feat of clay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The United Police State of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No need. The country is already occupied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil asset forfeiture is much like bribery. It only becomes a crime when the paperwork is out of order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're caught carrying large amounts of cash, and are, in fact, actually in the illegal drug trade, is it a stretch to suppose that with this level of skewed priorities and dishonesty in the police that you could easily bribe your way out of charges? "Don't book this in, officers, just take the cash, it's yours".
What I'm suggesting is that with the current mindset of liberating cash and goods, the "War on Drugs" going nowhere, guilty people just might be getting off being charged, whilst innocent people are flat out being robbed.
I don't think asset forfeiture was thought through very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it just me. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bribery
In other parts of the world, we call that bribery and it's a serious offence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you're right -- outside of this freak occurrence, there is no difference whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which makes the indiction so surprising. Maybe the grand jury confused the defendants with a ham sandwich.
Nothing will come of it, of course: courts have established that officers operating under the delusion of legality are still entitled to the results of their delusion, and in this case there are enough rulings and guidelines that their indictment must have come as a total surprise to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference is how the statement is worded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]