In Rare Win, Man Arrested On Bogus Drug Charges Gets Everything Back, Including $150,000 The Government Really Didn't Want To Give Up
from the asset-forfeiture:-adding-insolvency-to-injury dept
Here's a pretty encouraging story about fighting asset forfeiture and winning. The convoluted laws surrounding marijuana use are being exploited by California cops as revenue streams. A raid of a legal cannabis collective resulted in a whole lot of forfeited assets.
[I]n Oceanside, CA, [attorney Michael] Cindrich’s client Shaun Smith endured a home invasion, a SWAT-style raid where law enforcement took 3 ounces of cannabis concentrates, 55 pounds of cannabis and over $43,000 of his medical marijuana collective’s cash on-hand.
Not content with the massive cannabis haul, officers then took everything else it could find.
They also took what they felt were his assets, including a Toyota truck, guns, ammunition, and a motorcycle, then rode to the bank and confiscated the $110,000 from his bank account.
It appeared to be open-and-shut, especially as forfeiture is purposely extremely difficult to challenge, no matter what state you're in. Weed dealer busted. Assets obtained. Nothing left to do but decide how to split up the proceeds.
Fortunately for Smith, his lawyer quickly unraveled the very questionable case against him. The jury reached a not guilty verdict on the manufacturing and distribution charges in less than ten minutes. One of the key pieces of evidence in the prosecution's case -- a small extraction tube often used for butane extraction of cannabis oil (still illegal in the state) -- worked against it.
The prosecution tried to claim the tube showed Smith was engaged in illegal extraction efforts. Smith's lawyer, however, obtained documents from the DEA showing the extraction tube had never been in use. The lab notes on the seized evidence stated that there were spiderwebs inside the tube -- something that suggested it had been stored for quite some time, rather than being part of an active extraction effort.
From there, Cindrich went on to challenge the forfeiture. Once its case fell apart, the state was unable to successfully challenge Smith's motion for return of property. However, that didn't mean it actually returned all of the seized property. It gave him back all of the seized marijuana, weapons, and other miscellaneous items, but refused to hand over the $150,000 in cash or the motorcycle it took.
But in its haste to turn all of Smith's assets into its own, local law enforcement screwed up. It failed to process the forfeiture of these items in a timely manner. All hail "technicalities."
Since state agents seized the property pursuant to a state search warrant, the state statute of limitations of one year began on the date of seizure, not the date feds turned it back over to state. Since the one year statute of limitations had lapsed, Cindrich argued that the property return was required.
The District Attorney’s office said that the federal government seized the money initially, claiming the law enforcement authorizes involved in the raid were acting as federal agents.
The judge found in favor of Smith, noting that while the officers were cross-sworn as federal and state agents, the original seizure occurred under the state's authority, and the belated shift of the assets to the feds (as part of the DOJ's equitable sharing program -- a favorite loophole exploited by local law enforcement agencies to route around more restrictive state laws) didn't change the underlying facts. The attempt to reset the clock on the forfeiture failed and the DA's office is now in the process of returning the last of Smith's property to him.
A closed-loop collective that grows and distributes medical marijuana to members is fully legal in California. Obviously, law enforcement wishes this weren't the case. The same goes for the prosecutors who get fed questionable cases like this by overzealous drug warriors. A medical marijuana activist who attended some of the hearings in Smith's case points out that local prosecutors do everything they can to prevent juries from being made aware of this fact. Other cases covered by this advocacy group suggest this technique hasn't been working too well, what with juries returning not guilty verdicts in record time.
However, the loss of a prosecution does not automatically result in the return of seized assets. Convictions are not required in cases where the value of assets seized tops $40,000. And this stipulation doesn't go into effect until the beginning of next year -- which will also trigger a tightening of the equitable sharing loophole to prevent law enforcement from routing around the new conviction requirement. The sad fact is that, more often than not, citizens can walk away from bogus charges, but still have nothing to show for it in terms of returned assets.
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, oceanside, shaun smith
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OMG!!! I would have loved to have been there when cops gave back the weed. I'da plucked out a big ass bud and fired it up right there.
Everybody knows somebody that smokes weed. The Reefer Madness days are falling behind us, thankfully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thieves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thieves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thieves
steal a bunch of shit, and when called out on it, say, 'oh, i thought i could, but i still shouldn't have to give it back, i mean, regardless of what the *snort* law says, unless you really make me, and then i will as little as possible, unless you make me give back the rest, which i really, Really, REALLY hate to do...
i love that motorcycle, dude ! ! !
oh, and we're all square, now, right ? ? ?'
yeah, you and i walk away from that all square: in a square cell in the graybar hotel...
special klasses, special laws...
democracy at work, kampers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal Assets
So the State seized $150k, handed it to the Feds, then was ordered to pay $150k back to the person they took it from....but where is that money coming from? Doesn't this mean that the local jurisdiction is now out $150k, since they no longer have the funds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal Assets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal Assets
The taxpayers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curious
When you realise that cops are there to boost the coffers, then it makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Curious
And money doesn't have the right to a lawyer so we get to assume it's guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mildly entertaining story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mildly entertaining story
Not sure how you missed that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty, but not really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty, but not really?
It started out sounding like a good idea: find a bag of drugs and cash and take them - leaving the drug dealer with fewer resources. Find a car with a trunk loaded with heroin and keep the car - so it cannot be used to transport drugs again. This was fine, but then they decided to effectively give what was confiscated to the police. This gave them an incentive to take things that did not really meet the spirit of the law and we slipped down that slope to this point where they are simply stealing things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it in any way legal to prevent a jury from knowing what the actual law is? What's to stop a prosecutor from just making up any law they want and preventing the jury from knowing that it's bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess if they think they're going to get to steal $150k, it's worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]