Report Says DEA Doesn't Even Know If The Billions In Cash It Seizes Is Having Any Impact On Criminal Activity
from the also:-doesn't-seem-to-care dept
The DOJ's Inspector General has just released its latest report [PDF] on federal civil asset forfeiture. It's not pretty and it confirms many of the criticisms of the program. Law enforcement agencies -- including the DEA, which is responsible for nearly 80% of the $28 billion of forfeited assets over the past decade -- claim the program is key in the dismantling of criminal organizations.
However, the facts don't back up this claim.
The report opens by pointing out agencies involved in civil forfeiture seem completely uninterested in the actual pursuit of criminals. One multimillion dollar seizure resulted in nothing more than millions of dollars being seized. Any criminals associated with the cash are presumably still out there committing criminal acts.
Based on intelligence collected from the money laundering operations, other federal law enforcement agencies conducted additional investigative work which, according to the task force, resulted in the arrest of 84 individuals and the seizure of approximately $49 million. The OIG found that the BHPD received over $6 million in revenue derived, in part, from equitable sharing payments related to these seizures. However, according to a task force official, the task force did not file a single criminal indictment related to its money laundering investigative operations.
From which the OIG can only draw this conclusion:
Such outcomes can raise questions about whether seizures are intended to serve legitimate law enforcement interests or to bolster law enforcement budgets.
The report focuses on the DEA, as it's responsible for most of the forfeitures. Again, the claim that forfeiture is an effective crime-fighting tool isn't backed up by any data the DEA has on hand. In fact, the DEA seems uninterested in self-assessment or anything else that might undermine its claims of crime-fighting effectiveness. As the OIG points out, the DEA has no idea whether civil asset forfeiture actually works.
We found that the Department and its investigative components do not use aggregate data to evaluate fully and oversee their seizure operations, or to determine whether seizures benefit criminal investigations or the extent to which they may pose potential risks to civil liberties. The Department and its components can determine how often seizure and forfeiture advance or relate to criminal investigations only through a manual, case-by-case review of component case management systems
As is noted here, the DEA is not only uninterested in quantifying the results of forfeiture, but has expressed zero concern about potential civil liberties violations. The DEA basically doesn't know if forfeiture is good or evil. All it cares about is the money. It is so focused on seizing cash, it's set up a network of informants in airports, trains stations, bus deposts, and post offices who do little more than notify the agency any time they come across currency.
The DEA also does little to justify the initiation of seizures. The report notes nearly every seizure examined began with something barely approaching reasonable suspicion.
[W]e found that 85 of the 100 seizures occurred as a result of interdiction operations at transportation facilities, such as airports, parcel distribution centers, train stations, and bus terminals, or as a result of a highway interdiction or traffic stop. All but 6 of the 85 encounters or situations that led to interdiction seizures were initiated on the observations and immediate judgment of DEA agents and task force officers absent any pre-existing intelligence of a specific drug crime (the remaining six were based on preexisting intelligence).
Further, a majority of the seizures examined were seemingly carried out for no other reason than to seize cash.
[T]he DEA could verify that only 44 of the 100 seizures, and only 29 of the 85 interdiction seizures, had (1) advanced or been related to ongoing investigations, (2) resulted in the initiation of new investigations, (3) led to arrests, or (4) led to prosecutions.
Another seizure detailed in the report backs up the OIG's conclusions: the DEA is interested in cash and little else.
After Transportation Security Administration agents discovered U.S. currency artfully concealed in a manufactured compartment within the pulley of a checked bag, a task force officer assigned to a DEA group responded with a drug dog to assess the bag. The dog positively alerted to the presence of a controlled substance, and the group seized $70,460 concealed in the bag and its pulley. According to the DEA’s documentation, the group that effected the seizure had no immediate way to contact the traveler who had checked the bag; the traveler already had boarded the plane and the ticket had not been purchased through the airline. No effort was made to alert law enforcement in the arrival airport to stop and speak with the passenger claiming the bag; rather, a DEA agent placed a receipt for the currency and DEA contact information inside the bag and the airline sent the bag to its final destination.
The person who had purchased the ticket was different from the traveler but shared the same address. The DEA sent a notice of seizure to the address; but, after receiving no response, the DEA took no further action, such as following up, in person, at the known address to interview the traveler or the person who purchased the ticket. CATS records indicate that this seizure did not receive any petitions or claims and that it ultimately resulted in an administrative forfeiture of $70,460 to the federal government.
This is a repeated pattern with DEA forfeitures, and the OIG doesn't care for it.
Even accepting that the circumstances surrounding the discovery of this large volume of concealed currency justified law enforcement suspicion and seizure, we find it troubling that the DEA would make an administrative forfeiture without attempting to advance an investigation, especially considering that the DEA had opportunities to contact the potential owners of the currency instead of simply providing written notice of the seizure.
The OIG recommends all DOJ law enforcement components (but especially the DEA) engage in better recordkeeping and do more to assess whether seizures are actually having an impact on criminal activity. The DEA has rejected this recommendation. It would rather continue in the same fashion it has for years: lots of seizures, few arrests, and even fewer convictions. As the DEA sees it, the OIG's negative report is the result of the Inspector General being unable to grasp the complexities of the Drug War.
The Criminal Division’s response to the formal draft of our report (attached as Appendix 4) suggests that the OIG does not fully appreciate the importance of asset seizure and forfeiture in addressing our nation’s crime and illegal drug problems.
The OIG begs to differ, pointing out that a "well-run" program can be effective in fighting criminal activity. The problem here is that the program isn't well-run, especially in the DEA's case. The DEA can't demonstrate why forfeiture is effective, but claims it's the OIG that can't handle the "complexities" of the program. What the DEA wants is the same level of oversight it's had for years: nearly none. Periodic reviews by the Inspector General keep pointing to problems and indicators of abuse. Each one is greeted by DOJ Criminal Division indifference. The component agencies care little for the rights of Americans, especially if they're carrying seizable cash.
It's an ends-justifies-the-means situation, but the DEA doesn't even care whether the "ends" are even being met. It just likes the "means," which pads its ample budget and allows the government to seize billions in cash with minimal effort.
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, dea, stealing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gotta Love the Ambiguity
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
You mean they are INTENTIONALLY not keeping track. Hope you were being sarcastic or just a honest typo. No benefit of the doubt for them.
How idiotic would be to say they unintentionally don't keep track of some things? What? This is an institution that has decades, one of the foundations of USA "justice", and they unintentionally do things? If they are so STUPID or NEGLIGENT (or simply LIARS) to not keep track of some pretty basic stuff, then they should not exist as an institution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
Do you talk to people in real life like this, or are you just an Internet douchbag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta Love the Ambiguity
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta Love the Ambiguity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, i agree with you. Those people are innocent until proven guilty in DUE PROCESS, and none of their assets (including freedom of movement) should be taken away until a sentence has been declared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't seem sufficient to me, but I can see how it could seem sufficient to someone in the DEA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'It's important because we say it is'
The Criminal Division’s response to the formal draft of our report (attached as Appendix 4) suggests that the OIG does not fully appreciate the importance of asset seizure and forfeiture in addressing our nation’s crime and illegal drug problems.
... which might have something to do with the fact that the DEA seems completely uninterested in tracking how effective theft-at-badgepoint actually is to 'addressing our nation's crime and illegal drug problems'.
If they had some actual numbers to show to demonstrate that stealing everything that isn't nailed down was actually significantly impacting crime rates then they might have a leg to stand on, but given they seem to only care about the money and getting more of it, the idea that the OIG should just take them at their word that they're being effective is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like it's a "means justifies the means" situation to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, sure, some innocent people are caught up in this and have their money taken, but if you have $79K hidden in your luggage, chances are you are a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seized funds without convictions is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seized funds without convictions is theft
The DEA is a protection business. They protect drug dealers from arrest, and as payment for that service, they get a percentage of the revenue. Just like any other business, they are providing a valuable service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First
It seems that this sort of "make my department rich" mentality has perverted not just federal agencies, but many local police forces - a detail not covered in this report. Perhaps we need to find a worthy cause to put seized money toward - help for veterans, funding health care and research... anything that does not drive the wrong behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First
Nah, if you really want to twist the knife you send all seized money to the public defenders office, those that defend in court people that otherwise couldn't afford a defense.
Paired with a requirement of conviction before seizure and I guarantee they'd lose their penchant for stealing everything that wasn't nailed down or on fire practically overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First
Please. Let's give our valiant defenders in the Drug War the credit and respect they deserve. The DEA has its flaws, like any other agency, but I'm sure they at least know how to use a fire extinguisher and a crowbar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First
Well yes, but that's step two, and takes work so they're less likely to want to do it unless it's particularly lucrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEA has no motive to convict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that is why they keep some drugs illegal. To make more money from all those forfeitures.
The contradiction: "we will bring peace by bombing the fukk out of everyone else"
People should be able to put whatever substance they want in their bodies, KNOWINGLY and CONSCIOUSLY. That is freedom. But some idiots prefer to make it illegal and then abuse all those "criminals", from their rights and their monies. It is also well known, that a vast number of people in jails in the US are there because of drug related crimes, mostly possession of relatively small quantities.
Look at the big picture, today, despite of what they argue, people work longer hours, purchasing power is decreasing for the majority and we live in the biggest concentration of wealth in fewer hands, aka inequality. It has always been about the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but yes, it is all about the money.
That is why I support smaller government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How's that "smaller government" working out for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly right though, the OIG doesn't understand that the DEA doesn't want to win the war on drugs. The war on drugs is a huge cash cow. It would be a nightmare for the DEA if they actually won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]