Leaked Emails Show Chicago PD Bought, Deployed Drones Using Off-The-Books Forfeiture Funds

from the forced-transparency-still-more-effective-than-voluntary-transparency dept

Thanks to the efforts of transparency activists Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), residents of Chicago are learning more about the activities of their sworn protectors, the Chicago Police Department. Stuff the PD never wanted the public to see is now in the public's hands. The Chicago Sun Times has started digging into the stash provided by DDoS and has revealed the PD's secret drone program, paid for with off-the-books funds.

Details of the police department’s drone program were included in an email sent last summer by Karen Conway, director of police research and development. In the email, Conway told other high-ranking police officials that the department’s counter-terrorism bureau “utilized 1505 funds for a pilot Drone program that operates within the parameters of current laws.”

1505 funds are funds the city doesn't control or track. The funds belong solely to the Police Department -- something that happens shortly after the PD takes the funds from the people they used to belong to.

The department’s “1505” fund is made up of forfeiture proceeds — money and other assets seized in connection to criminal investigations. The money isn’t included in the department’s official budget and has reportedly been used in the past to purchase other controversial technology, like Stingrays, which mimic cell towers and send out signals to trick phones into transmitting their locations and other information.

Asset forfeiture is a great way to get cops the things they want without having to worry about oversight from either the city or its residents. Purchases are almost always "controversial" when they're made with funds that are all but invisible to outsiders.

And there's quite a bit of cash to be spent. The Chicago PD has taken in nearly $26 million in forfeiture funds in the last two years alone. It managed to spend nearly $8 million over that same period, some of it on "operating expenses," witness protection, and controlled drug buys. Some of that also went towards training programs and conferences, as well as their attendant expenses (travel, meals, lodging).

But some of it went towards new tech not specifically approved by the city. Emails included in the leaked documents suggest the PD wants its drones to participate in vehicle pursuits. One email references "Starchase" and "engine stop technology." This would allow pursuit vehicles to launch GPS trackers at pursued vehicles, allowing officers to stop chasing and start tracking. Drones would presumably be used to track vehicles from the air and put airborne eyes on suspects if and when the tracked vehicle is abandoned.

The only hang up appears to be the city's drone policies, which restrict how they can be used. The PD has obtained some waivers and relaxation of drone guidelines, but it appears this part of the program is still in the exploratory phase rather than in actual use at this time. However, other emails in the same stash claim the drones will be (or are being) used to search for missing persons, take crime scene photos, or assist in "terrorist-related issues."

But this isn't the only time the Chicago PD has expressed interest in airborne surveillance. While this email references vehicle pursuits (something the PD doesn't handle particularly well), there's no reason to believe the PD won't find other uses for the new eyes in the sky.

In 2018, the ACLU accused former Mayor Rahm Emanuel of being the heavy hand behind legislation in Springfield that would have allowed police officers to use drones equipped with facial recognition technology to monitor protests. Versions of the legislation passed both the state house and senate but a final bill was never signed into law.

“Given that the city not so long ago sought legislation to permit using drones to surveil public gatherings, including those engaged in First Amendment activity, it is worth questioning its motivations,” [ACLU spokesman Ed] Yohnka said of the new revelation.

The CPD may be looking at pursuit options but state law enforcement has its own drones and sent them skyward during protests last year sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin. The Illinois State Police said the drones were launched to capture footage of "potential uses of force and arrests," but the same recordings could easily have been used to identify and track people engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

This is just one of many problems with asset forfeiture programs. Not only does the government take control of citizens' property with almost no justification, but the direct beneficiaries of these programs are often allowed to spend the funds however they want with almost no oversight. That's how the Chicago PD gets into the drone business without ruffling feathers downtown or feeling any obligation to inform the public about their latest surveillance plans.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, chicago, chicago police department, drones, emails, leaks, surveillance

Judge Says DEA, TSA Can Continue To Be Sued For Stealing Cash From Airline Passengers

from the only-so-long-a-criminal-enterprise-can-remain-successful dept

The DEA's love for taking cash from travelers has gotten it sued. Again. In August 2019, DEA agents -- working with TSA agents -- took more than $80,000 from Rebecca Brown, who was carrying her father's (Terry Rolin) savings through an airport on her way home to put it in a bank account he could use to pay for dental work and truck repairs.

Working under the assumption that the mere existence of cash is illegal, the DEA and TSA lifted the cash from Rebecca Brown, claiming it was "suspicious." A lawsuit followed in January 2020. Shortly after the filing of the lawsuit, the DEA agreed to return the $82,000 it stole from the retiree and his daughter.

The lawsuit, however, continues. The Institute for Justice is representing multiple plaintiffs who've had their cash taken by the TSA and DEA. This return of funds helps Rebecca and her father, but it doesn't stop the DEA and TSA from continuing to declare nearly any amount of cash "suspicious" before taking it from travelers.

Earlier this year, the magistrate judge [PDF] taking the first crack at the case recommended the agencies not be allowed to exit the lawsuit. The government argued the plaintiffs had no standing because traveling with cash is a personal choice -- one that can be made at any time to give rise to claims of possible future injury. Yes, it's a stupid argument. And here it is:

The Government Defendants do not dispute that injuries attendant on seizure of one’s person, effects or cash would be concrete and particularized, or that the prospect of such injuries would be redressible by injunctive relief. Instead, the Government Defendants argue that no injury to Plaintiffs is imminent or likely because Plaintiffs do not allege plans to travel with large sums of cash; and that Plaintiffs cannot “manufacture” standing by “choosing” to refrain from traveling with a large amount of cash.

But "choosing to refrain" would be the wise choice, given the government's predilection for taking cash from travelers without even bothering to conjure up credible probable cause. The court points out where the government's arguments go wrong, starting with the apparent pattern and practice of stealing cash from people passing through airports.

If we accept the premise (as we must at the pleading stage) that TSA and DEA have adopted policies or practices of seizing large sums of cash discovered in TSA screenings, then it is a reasonable inference that if Plaintiffs were to resume domestic air travel with large sums of cash, there would be an imminent, substantial risk that their persons, effects and cash would be subjected to seizure by the TSA and the DEA.

And that's not the government's dumbest argument. Here's the magistrate judge's appraisal of that one -- an appraisal that was presumably prefaced with a facepalm:

Finally, the Government Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ choices to refrain from traveling with large sums of cash cannot be attributable to the TSA’s and DEA’s Seizure Policies, because the Plaintiffs were undeterred by those policies before they became aware of them. This is clearly a non-sequitur. It is hardly surprising that one would take steps to guard against a risk after, rather than before, becoming aware of it.

Love it. The government is basically arguing it should not be deterred from taking cash from passengers no matter what actions travelers take. Travel without cash? Well, you're just manufacturing injury. Travel with cash? Well, you're aware we might take it so you can't get all litigious when we do.

The government also -- unbelievably -- argued its own policies are unconstitutional. But, it claimed, the plaintiffs failed to prove these obviously unconstitutional policies exist.

The Government Defendants do not dispute that the Seizure Policies, if established, would be ultra vires and unconstitutional. However, they assert that the FAC does not plausibly plead the existence of such policies or practices under the standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The Government Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ allegations as “merely a conclusion – effectively, a recitation of the elements of Plaintiffs’ claim”; “at best, an ‘amorphous description’” of “actions by individual TSA screeners in particular cases” involving a “handful of individual travelers.”

Possibly, says the magistrate. But the plaintiffs have brought far more than conclusory arguments. From what's alleged, the TSA detains people who have "large amounts" of cash and the DEA is always on hand to swoop in and take it.

First, Plaintiffs relate dozens of incidents of travelers being detained by the TSA after completion of security screening, and/or then being detained by the DEA, for the purpose of seizing the travelers’ currency. That is more than a “handful”.

Second, Plaintiffs identify TSA Operations and Management Directives, Operating Procedures and other TSA documents that direct TSA Screeners who encounter travelers with cash in excess of $10,000 to investigate (“[c]onduct the procedures for checking travel documents”), to notify law enforcement, and to ask the travelers to “remain accessible”.

Third, Plaintiffs allege that in April, 2009 TSA stated on its website that passengers’ required cooperation with the TSA screening process includes “answering questions about . . . why they are carrying a large sum of cash”; that it was “standard practice for TSA Screeners to ‘ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash to account for the money’”; and that such investigations for the purpose of “detecting ‘signs of criminal activity’” were among the “principal duties of TSA Screeners”.

Get all of that? Great, there's more. The plaintiffs are basically bouncing the DEA/TSA's lifeless head off the concrete at this point:

Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that the DEA runs a national interdiction program called “Operation Jetway” which seizes tens of millions of dollars per year from travelers at every major commercial airport, and which provides standardized training and data collection and analysis.

Fifth, the Plaintiffs allege that a 2017 Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report found that most DEA seizures reviewed were unrelated to investigations, posing a risk that DEA “is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.”

And sixth, Plaintiffs allege that DEA interdiction agents have testified that they were trained by the DEA to regard travelers’ cash in excess of $5,000 as presumptively subject to seizure. Again, considering the factual allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, it is reasonably inferable that the DEA adopted policies and practices governing seizure of cash at airports, and that the DEA agents’ persistent practice of detaining travelers and seizing their cash based solely on its amount is consistent with and revelatory of the agency’s policy.

And so, given all the plausible allegations against the government, the magistrate recommended the TSA and DEA not be allowed to exit the lawsuit via their motion to dismiss. But -- as can be inferred from the title of the document -- it's only a "report" and (most importantly) "recommendation."

The good news is the federal judge handling the case has adopted the magistrate's R&R. As the Institute for Justice reports, the government will still have to deal with this putative class action lawsuit -- one that targets the DEA's well-known love of taking cash from people, as well as the TSA's aiding and abetting of this so-called legal theft.

U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Horan yesterday rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ three class action claims. Those claims are 1) that the TSA exceeds its statutory authority by detaining travelers and their cash after the security screening has ended; 2) that the TSA violates the Fourth Amendment by detaining travelers and their cash without reasonable suspicion of criminality; and 3) that the DEA violates the Fourth Amendment by detaining travelers without reasonable suspicion and seizing their cash without probable cause.

More lawsuits for all involved! That's great news. If nothing else, it may force the DEA to reckon with its unjustified greed and the TSA to reckon with one aspect of its overall awfulness. And if everything goes right, it may provide another clip of judicial ammo to attack civil asset forfeiture.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cash, dea, legalized theft, rebecca brown, stealing, tsa

Forfeiture In Theory: TAKING DOWN DRUG LORDS! Forfeiture In Practice: Taking A Guy's TV And PlayStation During A Drug Raid

from the can't-make-a-drug-war-without-breaking-a-few-home-electronics dept

Asset forfeiture means taking everything that isn't nailed down. Why bother being selective? In most cases, it's pure profit for the law enforcement agency that performs the seizure. And since forfeitures are so rarely successfully challenged, it's pretty much a foolproof way to make a little extra cash. The citizens who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (in their own houses with their own possessions) are acceptable collateral damage.

We're in the middle of a war against drugs. Collateral damage should be expected. That's the viewpoint of drug warriors, even when the "acceptable" collateral damage means nothing more than law enforcement officers taking stuff just because they can.

Here's a rare successful motion for a return of property -- one filed against the Bay County (FL) Sheriff's Office by a person who had his stuff taken even though it was his father being charged with criminal acts. The son -- whose father had all charges dropped after passing away -- took on the Office and secured a ruling that should finally give him back what was taken from him. (via FourthAmendment.com)

Unfortunately, there are still some hurdles standing between the plaintiff and the 75-inch TV and PlayStation 4 taken by the Sheriff's Office during a raid of his father's house. One set of hurdles has already been cleared. But it involved getting the Office to not only admit it was lying about taking the property, but also admitting it had likely liquidated the seized items before it had legal permission to do so.

Here's how the Florida Court of Appeals details the events [PDF] leading up to its findings in favor of the plaintiff.

The Sheriff’s Office initially denied having taken these items, but ultimately admitted that it had. By the time of the hearing below, the Sheriff no longer had the items and did not know where they were.

So, that's the first part of the puzzle. The Office lied to the plaintiff, if not the court itself. And it had apparently gotten rid of the seized property prior to giving the deceased's son a chance to ask for its return. Despite this, the Sheriff's Office argued it lawfully possessed the property it could no longer locate because the "title" to the seized property would have automatically transferred to the Sheriff's Office sixty days after the "conclusion of a legal proceeding." The death of the accused started the sixty-day clock, according to the Sheriff.

Wrong, says the court. That 60-day transfer only goes into effect if the contested items were seized "pursuant to a lawful investigation." That's a pretty low bar but the Sheriff's Office failed to meet it.

At the hearing below, the Sheriff did not address, and therefore did not prove, whether Appellant’s TV and PlayStation were lawfully seized from his bedroom during a search related to his late father’s drug charges.

And that's where the lower court went wrong. It never bothered to make the Sheriff's Office establish the items -- seized from the plaintiff's bedroom -- were linked to the charges facing his father. Back it goes to the lower court where the Sheriff's Office will have to offer some evidence linking the property it can no longer locate to the charges no longer pending against the plaintiff's dead father. Good luck with that. Just because items are inside a house belonging to someone who sells drugs doesn't mean every item in the house was purchased with ill-gotten gains.

If no tenuous link was asserted then, there's no link to a lawful seizure, which means the clock on automatic transfer to the cop shop inventory isn't 60 days, but four years. The items are likely long gone. But the Sheriff's Office may soon find itself shelling out its own ill-gotten gains to replace the ones it apparently unlawfully took from the plaintiff during its drug warring.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement, legalized theft, police

South Carolina Justices Seem Unimpressed By Government's Inability To Honestly Answer Questions About Forfeiture Abuse

from the inartful-dodger,-esq. dept

South Carolina's civil asset forfeiture programs are abusive and unconstitutional. That was the conclusion reached by a South Carolina court late last year.

This Court finds that South Carolina's forfeiture statutes violate both the federal and South Carolina constitutional protections against excessive fines by permitting the government to seize unlimited amounts of cash and other property without regard to the proportionality of the crime that may have been committed. Indeed, they allow the government to seize unlimited amounts of cash and other property when no crime has been committed, without a criminal conviction and without proof of a crime having been committed beyond a determination of probable cause.

The programs in South Carolina lend themselves to abuse by allowing state law enforcement and prosecutors to claim 95% of anything seized. Law enforcement agencies see the largest portion: 75 percent. Another 20 percent goes to prosecutors. The state itself takes the other five percent.

This is why the state's drug warriors do very little to stop the flow of drugs into the state. Officers patrol the outbound lanes of interstates, hoping to grab cash from dealers after they've offloaded their goods in the state. And, with 95% of the seizure in play, it makes more sense to let the person leave than go through the trouble of pursuing a conviction.

Once the process starts, it barely moves forward at all. There is no time limit on forfeiture proceedings. The law only says proceedings must be started in a "reasonable amount of time." In some cases, prosecutors have waited more than two years to initiate forfeitures. During that time, the person whose property has been taken has no way to contest the seizure, much less attempt to reclaim their stuff.

The state government -- at least the agencies that directly profit from it -- don't want to see these programs ended. The state's Supreme Court has been asked to make a final declaration on the constitutionality of civil forfeiture in South Carolina. While the question is still open, all forfeiture cases in the circuit where it was ruled unconstitutional have been put on hold.

The government wants these moving again. But its arguments -- and its legal rep's apparent inability to provide straightforward answers to the court -- seem to be pushing the state Supreme Court towards siding with the circuit court.

State Supreme Court justices pressed an attorney defending South Carolina’s civil asset forfeiture law with dozens of questions on Wednesday about the practice’s legitimacy, the timing of cases being resolved, and whether the state’s system of seizure and forfeiture leads to frequent abuses by police.

The state's legal rep, James Battle, appeared to be evasive when questioned directly about the programs' potential for abuse, leading to his being shut down by an SC justice before he could start talking his way around the question.

“Wouldn’t you agree that the application of our forfeiture statute, I’m talking generally about application of the statute, has resulted in abuses, disproportionate forfeitures and is a legitimate cause for concern?” Justice John W. Kittredge said.

Battle started to answer, and Kittredge said, “I don’t want you to answer the question by filibuster, and I think you just answered because you’re not willing to acknowledge that the application of our forfeiture statutes in South Carolina have resulted in abuses.”

Battle finally acknowledged the system could be abused, but refused to acknowledge it had been abused.

Battle also claimed the courts could prevent abuse, even if the initial seizure was abusive. While it's true courts are a check against abuse, very few forfeiture cases are actually handled by judges as the small amounts of cash most frequently taken aren't worth the expense of challenging in court.

Justice Kaye Hearn asked Battle if law enforcement having a financial stake affects how they operate. Battle said it can, but a judge must approve the forfeiture.

“So I guess your answer is, even though it may have been improper on the front end, at the tail end of this process it gets fixed by the court?” Hearn said.

“Exactly,” Battle replied.

Another justice pointed out Battle's evasiveness, even as he evaded another direct question about the number of times cases are dropped in exchange for seized property. Battle's response was to claim he only worked with civil cases so he had no idea if this happened or how often. This prompted Chief Justice Donald Beatty to flat out state he "didn't believe" Battle's claim of ignorance.

This isn't over. And oral arguments can sometimes be misleading. But a system that has been repeatedly abused -- and provides all the incentives needed to encourage perpetual abuse -- looks to be on the ropes in South Carolina. The programs are so problematic the government's lawyer can't answer questions directly or honestly without confirming the suspicions of the state justices. That doesn't bode well for the future of forfeiture in the state.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, forfeiture abuse, james battle, legalized theft, south carolina

Yet Another Report Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Reduce Crime Or Cripple Criminal Organizations

from the makin'-it-rain-on-discretionary-spending-opportunities dept

According to the Department of Justice (and countless other law enforcement agencies), civil asset forfeiture is a valuable tool that harms criminal organizations and lowers crime rates. It's a deterrent they assert actually exists, despite there being no accompanying arrests of these supposed criminals.

I don't know what criminal organizations are being dismantled at less than $1,000/seizure, but that's the reality of asset forfeiture. A large majority of forfeitures involve amounts too small to be disputed in court, where legal fees quickly outpace any expected recovery.

That's how the system "works." Cops grab what they can and hope the system tilted in their favor pays off. Any incidental effects on crime rates are a bonus. But lowering crime isn't the focus, no matter what's asserted by defenders of legalized theft.

And the facts say otherwise. A study released last year showed asset forfeiture has zero effect on crime rates or drug sales. All it does is take cash from people who need it the most, as is borne out by low dollar amounts most frequently seen in forfeiture cases.

Now, another study is confirming the obvious: asset forfeiture enriches police departments… but not the lives of the people they serve. The study had a great data set to work with. Back in 2015, New Mexico outlawed civil asset forfeiture. If cops wanted to take stuff, they had to secure a conviction. If asset forfeiture was the valuable crime-fighting tool New Mexico law enforcement agencies claimed it was, crime rates would be expected to increase. But that's not what happened, according to the Institute of Justice's study.

[F]ive years after New Mexico effectively banned civil forfeiture, those fears remain unrealized, according to a new study set to be published on Tuesday by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has been advocating reforms to forfeiture laws. The predicted rise in crime and drop in arrests has not materialized, according to the study, which is based on analyses of FBI data. Arrest and offense rates in New Mexico, the study found, remained essentially flat before and after the 2015 law went into effect. That’s based on an examination of crime overall, as well as a specific set of offenses: drug possession, drug sales, and driving under the influence. Arrest and offense rates were also consistent with trends in two neighboring states, Colorado and Texas.

Despite there being no link between forfeiture and crime reduction, the DOJ continues to claim the system works. The DOJ likes to point to its biggest seizures -- like forfeitures related to high-profile criminal cases involving millions of dollars -- as proof the program is essential to the recovery of criminal proceeds to make whole victims of crimes. But the DOJ purposefully conflates criminal and civil asset forfeiture. The former is tied to criminal convictions. The latter occurs without almost zero court examination or adversarial hearings.

Civil asset forfeiture rarely involves millions of dollars. When court costs are far more than what can be recovered, the system allows cops to amass large sums of cash in small increments. That's the reality of forfeiture: tiny amounts of cash no one outside of law enforcement would assume were the result of criminal activity.

The median forfeiture averaged $1,276 across the 21 states where usable data was obtainable. In most of those states, half of cash seizures fell below $1,000. In Michigan, for example, half of all civil forfeitures of currency were worth less than $423, and in Pennsylvania, that median value was $369.

That's how we're crippling massive criminal conspiracies: with cash amounts that wouldn't even cover a car payment. The median amount in these cases show cops are just shaking down people for the money in their wallets and cooking up a post-seizure justification for taking their money. If it costs $1,000 to fight a $400 seizure, almost everyone is just going to let it go. Then the cops point to the number of unchallenged seizures as "evidence" the alleged perps (who were never arrested or charged) are guilty of criminal activity.

This money is then converted into slush funds for cops -- ones that often aren't subject to additional oversight. Cops pay salaries and make off-the-book purchases of surveillance tech with these funds, secure in the knowledge that their oversight can't oversee line items that aren't reflected in local budget books. The more often they get away with this, the more often they feel they can use their power to take cash from people to buy themselves the things they want.

Meanwhile, no one gets any more safety or security out of the deal. Citizens are subjected to shakedowns by officers without any corresponding decrease in crime rates or increase in public safety. Not only do cops become a law unto themselves with forfeiture programs, they shortchange honest citizens whose tax dollars are being wasted on programs designed to pad cop shop budgets.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, crime, doj, legalized theft, police

Pennsylvania Cops Are Still Abusing Asset Forfeiture To Help Themselves To People's Cash

from the if-only-the-legislature-gave-a-damn dept

Asset forfeiture remains one of the most abused law enforcement practices in the country. While some attempts have been made to rein in this abuse, in most locales, it's just considered a useful law enforcement tool with minimal downsides.

Pennsylvania has some of the worst asset forfeiture laws in the nation. And it shows. Law enforcement has occasionally been benchslapped by judges for traveling past the wide boundaries granted to it by local legislators. In one case, a judge stopped the state from seizing a grandmother's house just because her son sold officers $140-worth of marijuana from the residence.

In another case, a judge excoriated officers for stripping a house of everything with possible resale value under the pretense that anything of value in it must have been purchased with drug money.

The Drug Task Force does not seize furniture or clothing, silverware, or other items that have low resale value. They focus upon items that have high resale value. That is not a problem in itself, until the police begin to ignore that there must be a nexus to drug dealing or drug money to seize those higher high value assets. [...] In this case the Drug Task Force personnel ignored the need for such a nexus and engaged in a shopping spree, for the benefit of their budget, based solely on the property's resale value.

The problems continue in Pennsylvania. Courts stop what they can when they see obvious abuse, but they never see most forfeiture cases because seizures require money and legal talent to challenge, which are things most forfeiture victims don't have on hand.

Without a lawyer, people stand little chance. Of the 32 cases The Appeal and Spotlight PA reviewed, the state returned cash or property only when a lawyer got involved, according to case records from the Office of the Attorney General. Out of the $608,000 seized and subsequently prosecuted, the attorney general’s office gave back less than $60,000 after negotiating with property owners' lawyers.

In more than 75% of the cases reviewed, no challenge was raised or the challenge was raised improperly. Both led to the same outcome: the state taking possession of the seized assets.

In some cases, Pennsylvania law enforcement has deemed seized cash to be "guilty" simply because it's been in circulation. The article cites two studies detailing how much drug residue ends up on cash, which has the possibility of turning innocent people into suspects Pennsylvania cops have no interest in charging criminally. A 2008 study showed 42% of currency had trace amounts of meth on it. A 2009 study said nearly 90% of currency is contaminated with cocaine residue. If Pennsylvania cops can't find another pretext to seize cash, they'll test the cash itself for drug residue and go from there.

Out of 11 cases reviewed by The Appeal and Spotlight PA in which no charges were filed, the attorney general’s office justified seizing people’s money after testing the cash for drug residue in 10 of them.

Much of what law enforcement seizes comes from traffic stops. But these stops were so pretextual and bereft of probable cause, roughly a third of all criminal cases arising from traffic stops by drug interdiction officers were thrown out. That hasn't stopped cops from stopping people and trying to talk them out of their cash. They've just become a little more careful and a little less likely to copy-paste non-specific boilerplate like "criminal activity was observed."

But the main point of forfeiture in Pennsylvania is to enrich the agencies participating in it. For all the talk about cracking down on the dangerous drug trade, very few serious criminal charges are tied to forfeitures.

In about one-third of the cases reviewed, police seized cash from people who were never charged with a crime or even issued a traffic ticket. One-quarter of the cases resulted in misdemeanor convictions, and another quarter resulted in felony convictions.

This is how the system works. It has been streamlined for maximum law enforcement efficiency. It serves only the agencies that directly benefit from it. And unless legislators are willing to take on powerful law enforcement interests, it is never going to change.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, legalized theft, pennsylvania, police

Minnesota Cops Are Dismantling Criminal Organizations At Less Than $1,000 A Pop

from the oh-wait-i-guess-that-isn't-doing-jackshit-to-the-crime-rate dept

Law enforcement officials love to defend asset forfeiture. While sidestepping the fact that it almost always directly enriches the agency doing the forfeiting, these officials love to claim it's an invaluable tool that helps cops dismantle dangerous criminal organizations.

This is why they fight reporting requirements. No one knows you're just making poor people poorer unless you're required to report all of your forfeitures. Up in Minnesota -- like far too many other places around the country -- law enforcement officers roll Sheriff of Nottingham style. Unfortunately, there's no Robin Hood lurking in the forests patrolled by opportunistic officers.

Here's state auditor Julie Blaha offering her opinion about forfeitures in Minnesota after digging into the data the agencies provided:

“The data shows that when it comes to the impact of forfeitures, the big story is in the small numbers,” Blaha said in a statement. “Those kinds of amounts have a small impact on government systems, but they have a big impact at the individual level.”

[...]

“If you are managing a public safety budget, small forfeitures are a minor and unpredictable part of your revenue stream,” Blaha continued. “But if you are a low income person experiencing a forfeiture, those amounts can have a big effect on your life. Having a few hundred dollars seized can mean the difference between making rent or homelessness. Losing that old car can lead to missing work and losing your job.”

The program punishes the poor. Very few law enforcement agencies which rely on forfeiture for their discretionary funds want to tangle with an actually organized criminal organization. Those guys can afford lawyers. Most citizens can't. That's why most seizures are so small they're not worth fighting in court. At the end of the jurisprudence day, citizens may win back their cash or cars, but they'll lose the war, having paid more in court and legal fees than what their property is worth.

Everything adds up to real money if you have enough of it. Here's the ugly truth, straight from the auditor's report [PDF].

523 (12 percent) forfeitures were less than $100.
1,414 (32 percent) forfeitures ranged from $100 to $499.
858 (20 percent) forfeitures ranged from $500 to $999.
1,252 (29 percent) forfeitures ranged from $1,000 to $4,999.
304 (7 percent) forfeitures were equal to or greater than $5,000.

Only seven percent targeted amounts that might actually do damage to criminal organizations. 64% of forfeitures targeted less than $1,000.

Here's the list of crimes associated with these seizures, which shows officers are willing to take easy wins and easy cash, rather than actually tangle with criminal enterprises far more harmful and dangerous.

In 2019, DUI-related and controlled substance accounted for 94 percent of the forfeitures. DUI-related forfeitures accounted for 3,654, or 47 percent, of reported forfeitures, while forfeitures involving a controlled substance accounted for 3,611, or 47 percent, of reported forfeitures. The remaining forfeitures involved fleeing (251), prostitution (69), “other” crimes (36), weapons (31), robbery/theft (23), assault (20), and burglary (13). Figure 5 on the following page shows completed forfeitures by type of crime.

Oh thank god. They're dismantling Big Drunk. We won't have to fear the scourge of alcohol/drug consumers for much longer. #Heroes. And if that wasn't enough, the dangerous Sinola Fleeing Cartel is being destroyed bit-by-bit. Abandoned property is so much easier to seize and forfeit than stuff people are still standing next to and stating their claim for.

This is how asset forfeiture works: easy wins predicated on criminal activity that rarely affects anyone besides the person stopped and their property. It all adds up though. For the state of Minnesota, the total was $7.5 million. And what did it accomplish? Did it cripple the non-organized crime of driving under the influence? Did it make it less likely for people to carry their personal stashes of illicit substances? No one dismantled a drug cartel. No one ensured Minnesotans would be subjected to fewer violent crimes. All that happened was cops took stuff that was easy to take and spent the money once it rolled in.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, julie blaha, legalized theft, minnsesota

DHS Agencies Are Taking Millions In Cash From Travelers Every Year, Can't Be Bothered To Stop Any Crimes

from the taking-taxpayers'-dimes-on-the-taxpayers'-dime dept

In a little over 15 years, DHS agencies interacted with millions of travelers passing through our nation's airports… and relieved them of over $2 billion in cash. (And that's just agencies like the CBP and ICE. The DEA also lifts cash from airline passengers -- something it loves doing so much it hires TSA agents to look for money, rather than stuff that could threaten transportation security.)

That's just one of several disturbing findings in the Institute for Justice's (IJ) new report [PDF] on the DHS's ability to separate travelers from their money. Utilizing the Treasury Department's forfeiture database, the IJ discovered the DHS is a fan of taking cash and does so more frequently at certain airports. The most popular airport for cash seizures is, by far, Chicago's O'Hare. In 2014, the airport accounted for 34% of all cash seized despite handling only 6% of all air travelers.

More travelers means more opportunities, which explains some of the increase in seizures over the past decade. But as the IJ points out, seizures are outpacing the bump in travel stats.

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of air travelers increased 46%, while the inflation-adjusted value of currency seized at airports by DHS agencies increased 140% and the number of airport currency seizure cases grew 178%.

Any international airport will be patrolled by CBP and ICE agents looking for cash to seize. And they're not looking to catch drug dealers, human traffickers, or any other criminals that might be carrying cash around. No, the most common criminal activity to result in forfeitures is nothing more than a reporting violation.

Federal law requires travelers to declare any currency over $10,000 when traveling into or out of the country. It's pretty easy to get this done when traveling into the US, as arriving visitors will be required to go through Customs and declare anything they're bringing into the country, including cash. Outbound travelers may not realize this applies to them and since they're not required to pass through Customs on the way out, they may have no idea they're violating the law. That's an opportunity DHS agencies are more than happy to capitalize on. Half of all seizures between 2000-2016 were for violating this reporting requirement.

In fact, serious criminal activity is something no one seizing money seems very concerned about. Asset forfeiture isn't about dismantling criminal empires. It's about taking cash from people who have limited means to fight back. If the government has all your cash, it's pretty tough to hire a lawyer and fight an uphill battle against a system that dispenses with the property's former owner completely to engage in litigation against the cash itself.

Overall, 69% of DHS agency airport currency seizure cases were not accompanied by an arrest, regardless of the alleged offense. This means less than a third of the time was an offense egregious enough, or the evidence strong enough, to warrant an arrest.

This isn't just a DHS thing. It's an everybody thing.

In 2017, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an in-depth study of a sample of 100 Drug Enforcement Administration forfeiture cases. The study found that only 44 of those cases advanced or were even related to a criminal investigation. That same year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reviewed a sample of 278 cases in which currency was seized under “structuring” laws, which prohibit conducting bank transactions below $10,000 to evade federal reporting requirements. The law is in place to prevent crimes like money laundering, but the study found that in 91% of cases, the seized funds were from a legal source, such as a family-owned business. The study also found that IRS agents were encouraged to conduct “quick hits,” where property was easier to seize, “rather than pursue cases with other criminal activity (such as drug trafficking or money laundering), which are more time-consuming.”

Taking money from people has always been easier than fighting crime. That much has been obvious for years. The IRS said the quiet part loud on accident. This report says everything the government isn't willing to admit to the public, much less itself: the point of forfeiture programs is to enrich those performing the forfeitures. That's it. That's the entire thing. Any reductions in criminal activity are purely coincidental.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cbp, civil asset forfeiture, dhs, ice, legalized theft, tsa

After Seven Years And A US Supreme Court Victory, Tyson Timbs Is One Step Closer To Finally Getting His Car Back

from the never-underestimate-the-pettiness-of-an-institution-that-sees-its-revenue-stream dept

Tyson Timbs went all the way to the US Supreme Court to get his forfeited Land Rover returned to him. Represented by the Institute for Justice, Timbs took his case through every level of the Indiana court system before finding relief in the nation's top court. Seven years after his vehicle was seized during his arrest for heroin dealing, he's still waiting for the cops to return his car.

The Supreme Court said the seizure of a $42,000 vehicle over a crime with a maximum possible fine of $10,000 was disproportionate and violated Constitutional protections against excessive fines. Timbs ultimately only paid $1,200 in fines and spent one year on home detention for his crime, which involved two controlled heroin sales to undercover cops totaling less than $400.

The state argued it had never adopted the excessive fine clause of the Eighth Amendment, despite most states having already adopted this clause more than 70 years ago. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch seemed pretty exasperated at the state's attempt to talk around the issue to maintain ownership of a car it had seized in 2013.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, whatever the Excessive Fine Clause guarantees, we can argue, again, about its scope and in rem and in personam, but whatever it, in fact, is, it applies against the states, right?

MR. FISHER: Well, again, that depends.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I mean, most -- most of the incorporation cases took place in like the 1940s.

MR. FISHER: Right.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And here we are in 2018 -­

MR. FISHER: Right.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, General.

The Grant County Court has now moved Timbs one step closer to retrieving his Land Rover. The court -- dealing with remands from both the state and United States Supreme Courts -- says the forfeiture of Timbs' car is obviously disproportionate. There's no question this seizure violates Timbs' Constitutional rights.

The decision [PDF] points out Timbs has done everything expected from him during his probation, often exceeding the minimal requirements imposed on him.

Timbs remains on probation and has had no probation violations. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to suggest that Timbs has committed any crimes Sinée the date of his arrest in 2013. While on probation Timbs has participated in the Grant County Substance Abuse Task Force, shared his story and insights with a gubernatorial drug task force, and on at least one occasion agreed to request by the Grant County Probation Department to help with another probationer. In an effort to remain clean, Timbs also participated in Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous Programs.

Timbs has also remained gainfully employed since his arrest, working at a number of jobs. His current employer is roughly an hour's drive from his home. As the court notes, depriving him of his car -- which was also apparently his only meaningful asset -- has hurt Timbs' chance to rehabilitate and re-enter society.

Being without vehicle has made it more difficult for Timbs to reintegrate into society and earn a living. This is true for virtually all offenders. Having a car is almost indispensable to maintaining a job in Indiana: only 0.9% of Hoosier workers get to and from their jobs using public transportation...

Cars are crucial to maintaining employment in most parts of Indiana and employment is crucial to reducing recidivism. According to a publication on the Indiana Department of Corrections’ website, unemployment is one of the top two predictors of recidivism in Indiana. Automobiles are also vital to offenders like Timbs who are suffering from substance abuse disorders. Routinely, these offenders are ordered to participate in drug and alcohol treatment, and cars are usually utilized to attend addiction services and treatment programs located in and around Grant County.

The court says the seizure harms Timbs far more than it should and the state does not appear to have balanced the side effects of this seizure with minimal severity of Timbs' crime.

The forfeiture of the Land Rover did nothing to remedy the harm caused. Often, the illegal sale of narcotics causes physical and emotional harm to users and negatively impacts families, and coworkers. It also overburdens the justice system and strains our healthcare system. However, Timbs’s specific crime was victimless. It caused no actual harm as the sale he made was to undercover officers; hence, the heroin was never used.

Furthermore, the Land Rover was purchased with life insurance funds Timbs obtained after his father's death. There was never any doubt the vehicle was lawfully purchased using legally-obtained funds. Despite this fact, the state used less than $400 worth of heroin sales to deprive Timbs of his sole asset, making it almost impossible for him to abide by the terms of his probation, much less reintegrate successfully into society.

Cops often claim forfeiture helps them dismantle large-scale drug operations. The court can't see how Timbs fits into the forfeiture narrative law enforcement agencies like to push.

He was no drug “kingpin," a fact recognized by the State when it agreed that the minimum sentence of six years with only one year executed on home detention was appropriate. In addition, there is no evidence in the record that Timbs was engaged in trafficking narcotics beyond two controlled buys. He simply does not fit into the class of persons for whom the statute was principally designed: individuals who regularly sell narcotics to earn a living. Selling narcotics was not an occupation for Timbs. Instead, he sold heroin to feed his addiction. But for his addiction, there is every reason to believe that Timbs would never have sold heroin to anyone.

With that, the court orders the release of Timbs' Land Rover "immediately." While it's an undeniable courtroom win for Timbs, the question is what the car will actually be worth when it's all said and done.

[The judge] ordered the Land Rover, which the state has stored in an outdoor parking lot exposed to the elements since 2013, released to Timbs immediately.

It obviously won't be worth anything near the $35,000 it was worth when the state took it. And the state didn't care what happened to the car while this was litigated because it wasn't able to place it on the auction block. That being said, it's still one more car than Timbs possesses now.

But it still might be the state's car for the time being. Apparently the government still isn't willing to let the car go.

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill Jr. said he isn't halting his efforts to keep Timbs' Land Rover on behalf of the state.

In a written statement, Hill vowed to "defend the constitutionality of Indiana's civil forfeiture laws" by asking the Indiana Supreme Court to review [Judge] Todd's ruling.

This is the kind of gambling you can do when you're using other people's money. You can head into a seventh year of litigation over a single vehicle, arguing against the application of the nation's Constitutional rights to your own constituents. Nice work if you can get it.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeitue, supreme court, tyson timbs

DEA Returns Money It Stole From An Innocent Woman, Gets Court To Let It Walk Away From Paying Her Legal Fees

from the abolish-DEA dept

Just another reminder the Drug Enforcement Agency doesn't care all that much about drugs and/or enforcement. If there's money to be made, the DEA is all in. If it can score easy wins by engaging in entrapment, it will. But the drugs will flow and the damage will be done. And the DEA will be there to hoover up the cash… even when the cash has nothing to do with drugs.

The DEA stole another person's life savings back in 2015. A raid of house predicated on the theory Miladis Salgado's husband was involved in drug dealing ended with the DEA walking off with $15,000 Salgado had saved for her daughter's quinceanera. This was money Salgado had saved while working at a duty-free shop in the Miami airport, along with gifts from friends and relatives.

And it all was gone after the DEA raided her house. The good news is Salgado eventually got her money back. But it took time and it took a lawyer. In the end, the DEA admitted it had no evidence tying her husband to drug trafficking.

It would take two years for Salgado to recover her money from the DEA, which did not arrest her husband because agents discovered he had not been selling drugs after all. The lead DEA agent admitted in a court deposition that there was no evidence supporting the allegation.

If you sue (which means being able to pay a lawyer), sometimes (and only sometimes) you can get your money back. But that's not the end of the story. The DEA handed the money back to Salgado before a judge could rule on the merits of the case. The agency did this to ensure it didn't have to compensate Salgado for fighting to get her money back.

Before a critical ruling in the civil forfeiture dispute with Salgado, Justice Department lawyers on their own decided to return her money. But at the same time, they argued that Salgado had not really won because a judge granted the feds the right to refile their civil case in the future — even though they probably had no intention of doing so. As a result, the government argued it did not have to pay her attorney’s fees, which she said amounted to $5,000.

Unfortunately, the judge agreed with the government's arguments. It was clear the government had no intention of trying again at the state level. It had only given the money back to avoid a ruling against it that would have made it liable under CAFRA for her legal fees. The court somehow came to the conclusion that the last-minute release (after more than two years of litigation) of the seized money wasn't a bad faith maneuver by the DEA to dodge paying more than it had taken in.

Salgado's case is now in front of the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on her appeal in April. Hopefully, the court will align itself with citizens who've had money taken from them under the pretense that it's been illegally obtained -- all without a single criminal charge being brought against them. A North Carolina federal court wouldn't let the IRS duck fees in a forfeiture case where the government dropped the case after the victim fought back. Neither should the Supreme Court. Allowing government agencies to use the costs of litigation to deter people from recovering property the government admits (via dismissal, etc.) did not come from illegal sources makes it that much easier for the government to stay in the legalized theft business.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dea, legalized theft, miladis salgado