Doctor Suing A Patient Over A Negative Review Has His Case Dismissed Under Tennessee's New Anti-SLAPP Law

from the when-your-attorney-doesn't-seem-to-be-aware-of-updates-to-the-law dept

For the second time in less than a month, I'm reporting on Tennessee attorney Dan Horwitz's anti-SLAPP powers. The state -- once home to a bunch of really stupid defamation lawsuits targeting protected speech -- is no longer as welcoming to this particularly vexatious form of litigation thanks to its new anti-SLAPP law.

No sooner had the law passed than a doctor decided to sue a patient over an unfavorable Yelp review. Dr. Kaveer Nandigam was apparently unhappy Kelly Beavers recorded an appointment with her father, who is suffering from dementia. Beavers routinely did this to ensure she was providing proper care for her dad. Dr. Nandigam took exception to her recording process, demanding she delete the recording and yelling at her for doing something fully within her rights (Tennessee is a one-party consent state).

Beavers expressed her displeasure on Yelp and Dr. Nandigam expressed his displeasure by suing her. He dropped the lawsuit when Beavers secured the assistance of Dan Horwitz, who has been beating back bullshit lawsuits in Tennessee for years now.

But this win was very short-lived. Nandigam refiled his dismissed lawsuit in the county's General Sessions Court, supposedly for "procedural reasons." Maybe so, but it seems like the not-so-good doctor maybe thought doing a court switcheroo would shake his anti-SLAPP tail, personified by Horwitz.

It didn't work. Horwitz is now reporting he's secured a win that will keep Nandigam from trying to fire up his SLAPP suit for a third time. (Well… barring any inexplicable takes from the state's appeals court.)

Several defendants quickly benefited from the TPPA’s [Tennessee Public Participation Act] added protections after the statute took effect, resulting in plaintiffs quickly dropping defamation claims or providing additional bases for dismissal in speech-based lawsuits that were ultimately dismissed on other grounds. Today, however, in a ruling by Wilson County General Sessions Judge Barry Tatum, the first-ever petition to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims under the Tennessee Public Participation Act has been granted.

The one-page order dismisses the case with prejudice and says all costs will be paid by Dr. Nandigam. Horwitz and Beavers are still waiting for a ruling on legal fees and/or sanctions but the law is on Horwitz's side. The state's anti-SLAPP law allows the prevailing party to recover fees and this swift dismissal (with prejudice) of Nandigam's second attempt suggests that will go Beavers' way as well.

The law works. It should work better this time around with a full dismissal, rather than a case dropped just so the plaintiff could try again in an adjacent venue. If Nandigam ends up having to pay the winner's legal fees, the new anti-SLAPP law may finally act as a deterrent, with the doctor providing a test case other attorneys can use to dissuade similarly-aggrieved residents from suing people for criticizing them.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, daniel horwitz, free speech, kaveer nandigam, kelly beavers, reviews, tennessee
Companies: nandigam neurology, yelp

Tennessee Deputy Who Baptised An Arrestee And Strip Searched A Minor Now Dealing With 44 Criminal Charges And Five Lawsuits

from the LAW-ENFORCEMENT-OFFICER-OF-THE-YEAR dept

Tennessee sheriff's deputy Daniel Wilkey has racked up some amazing stats during his short law enforcement career. At the age of 26, Deputy Daniel Wilkey is at his second law enforcement agency, having left the Rhea County Sheriff's Office for the Hamilton County in 2018.

During his time as a Rhea County deputy, Daniel Wilkey was named in one (1) federal lawsuit for fatally shooting a person. Since his arrival in Hamilton County in February 2018, Wilkey has been hit with five (5) civil rights lawsuits. Fortunately, none of these involve Wilkey killing anyone.

More unfortunately, about half of them break new ground in civil rights violation territory. One alleges an unlawful roadside anal search that injured the searchee. Another involves a super-weird forced baptism in a nearby lake, supposedly in exchange for leniency with a drug arrest. Both of those were filed on the same day.

Yet another two (2) lawsuits involve minors, roadside strip searches, and Wilkey's bizarre personal blend of religious affirmations and verbal abuse.

But Wilkey's biggest numbers are his latest. Via Cacobot comes this update: Deputy Wilkey is facing almost as many felony charges as he is years-old.

Hamilton County Sheriff's Office Deputy Daniel Wilkey has been indicted on 44 criminal charges, including 25 felonies, "pertaining to incidents he was involved in while on duty in an official capacity," according to the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office.

Here are the charges (with counts per), which can pretty much be read to the tune "Twelve Days of Christmas" [felonies in bold]:

10 Reckless Driving
9 Official oppression
7 Reckless endangerment
6 Sexual Battery
4 Stalking
3 Assault
2 False imprisonment
2 Rape
1 Extortion

All this from a deputy who's only been with his current agency for ten (10) months. And in that short period of time, he managed to rack up eight (8) internal affairs investigations.

The criminal charges only add to Wilkey's multitudinous problems. Judges in two of the four lawsuits Wilkey is facing have refused to put those on hold until after the criminal cases are decided. Wilkey's attorney argued it would be unfair for him to have to face both, especially since testimony/evidence in the criminal cases could be used against him in the civil lawsuits. Too bad, says Judge Mattice, who is presiding over the forced baptism case:

"Defendants… downplay Plaintiff's interest in vindicating alleged violations of the rights guaranteed to her by the United States Constitution. It is not merely 'money' weighed against Defendant's unspecified rights," Mattice wrote. "As previously noted, Defendants do not have a right to defend against civil and criminal proceedings one at a time, nor do they have a general right to avoid the evidentiary implications of responsive pleadings."

Things may change as the criminal cases move forward, but for now, Wilkey's fighting a battle on at least two five fronts. One lawsuit has been stayed, but only for 90 days. Wilkey might want to start exercising that speedy trial right ASAP.

As for Wilkey's compadres -- the three deputies who stood idly by while Wilkey violated rights in new and inventive ways? They're just kind of hanging around, sucking up tax dollars. Bobby Brewer, who aided with the roadside anal search, is on clerical duty. Jacob Goforth, who hung around and watched Wilkey "baptise" an arrestee, is back on active duty. And Tyler McRae, who helped Wilkey proselytize while stripping a minor down to his boxer shorts, is still on patrol and has not been placed under investigation.

Deputy Wilkey is in a league of his own. His LAR* won't be topped any time soon -- at least not by anyone playing for farm team agencies. It will take a major league asshole to beat Wilkey's 44 charges and five lawsuits. Given enough time, someone will be it cumulatively. But give those fuckers an asterisk. Wilkey's dealing with this all at the same time -- and he locked down these stats in a mere 10 months of work.

^{*Lawsuits Above Replacement}

Filed Under: daniel wilkey, hamilton county, police, rhea county, tennessee

Deputy Sued Over Forced Baptism Sued Again By A Minor Alleging Another Bizarre Mixture Of God And Invasive Searches

from the hyperspecific-religions-weird-rn dept

Hamilton County (TN) Deputy Daniel Wilkey is one sick man. Recently, we covered his elevation into the ever-swelling ranks of Law Enforcement Officer What Have Been Sued. But Wilkey joined in the most spectacular fashion: he was sued twice in the same day.

This wasn't the only thing that made Deputy Wilkey stand out. The allegations were highly unusual, to say the least. In one case, Deputy Wilkey claimed to be able to smell the odor of marijuana emanating from a car that passed him while his cruiser idled on a cross street. This and alleged illegal window tint were used to justify a stop that escalated into the nonconsensual anal search of the vehicle's passenger, resulting in the tearing of the man's anus and the aggravation of his existing hernia.

The second lawsuit's allegations were just as disturbing. And they wandered off into areas not normally seen in civil rights lawsuits. The second plaintiff claimed Deputy Wilkey searched her car and her bra before telling her she'd get off with a lighter punishment if she agreed to be baptized in a nearby lake. This weird ritual was carried out in the presence of Deputy Jacob Goforth, who did nothing to stop Wilkey's forced baptism of a female citizen.

Wilkey is facing two more lawsuits, according to WRCB TV. And there's even more weird sociopathy present in the accusations. On July 9th, Deputy Wilkey was sued by a man who claims the deputy used excessive force during a traffic stop over window tint.

This lawsuit [PDF] claims the deputies performed an illegal search of his vehicle by detaining him until they could run a drug dog around his car. The drug dog supposedly alerted but no drugs were found. The deputies also allegedly told the man to stand with his hands on the hot hood of a vehicle, resulting in burns.

The second lawsuit [PDF], filed October 17th, details Deputy Wilkey's harassment of six minors in a vehicle. Once again, Wilkey told the driver and occupants he had stopped them for illegal window tint. He was also accompanied by Deputy Jacob Goforth, who was present during Wilkey's forced baptism of another driver. Wilkey also claimed he "smelled weed," apparently to justify the actions he took next. He ordered all of the minors out of the car and began doing things only Deputy Wilkey would ever do.

Without any lawful justification, Wilkey then ordered the minors to take their cell phones and place the phones inside the vehicle.

As Goforth stood by and watched, Wilkey began a series of comments to the minors about religion and said that he was "praying" for them.

Interspersed in his comments about God, Jesus and religion were Wilkey's insults, foul language, and comments about how the minors will end up like their "piece of s#*t parents" and become "disappointments."

Well then.

As Goforth stood by in apparent silent approval, Wilkey told the minors the "law" did not allow them to call their parents. He then ordered the single male minor to strip down. The minor stripped down to his boxers. Wilkey told the minor to take his boxers off. The minor refused.

Wilkey then searched the five females, running his hands over their entire bodies and spending extra time on their breasts, buttocks, and crotches. He pulled out one minor's bra and "shook" it, supposedly looking for contraband. (He did the same thing to the woman he forcibly baptized.)

The entire ordeal lasted nearly two hours, with the minors being subjected to Wilkey's prayers, insults, and groping while standing in the rain.

The lawsuit then goes on to point out the Sheriff's Office has refused to discipline or fire a number of deputies and jailers who have engaged in serious misconduct. It has also failed to do anything with Deputy Wilkey other than give him a paid vacation.

Wilkey has had four lawsuits filed against him this year. Three of the four allege their stops were predicated on window tint violations. Two of the four state Wilkey claimed he "smelled weed." Two of the lawsuits allege horrific levels of misconduct tied to Wilkey's very unique brand of religion. There's a pattern here and patterns are bad news for law enforcement agencies that hope to get themselves dismissed from lawsuits.

Then there's Deputy Goforth who has stood by and allowed Wilkey to violate rights. Hopefully that will hurt him just as much as these lawsuits will hurt Deputy Wilkey.

Filed Under: daniel wilkey, hamilton county, police, tennessee

Tennessee Deputy Sued Twice In The Same Day Over A Roadside Anal Search And A Forced Baptism

from the yeah-I've-never-seen-those-words-lined-up-like-that-before-either dept

You've got to be a special kind of law enforcement officer to have two lawsuits filed against you in the same day. Hamilton County Deputy Daniel Wilkey is that kind of special. The Tennessee law enforcement officer managed to violate rights against enough people that two of them retained lawyers. This suggests Deputy Wilkey violates rights on a regular basis, but maybe not egregiously enough to merit a lawsuit in every case.

Both cases here are disturbing. And they're disturbing in very different ways. I've never read a civil rights lawsuit against an officer that included claims of a forcible religious experience, but here we are. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

The first lawsuit [PDF], filed by Shandle Riley, alleges that Deputy Wilkey followed her to a friend's house from a nearby gas station. Once he had (sort of) pulled her over, things got weird quick.

First, Deputy Wilkey claimed Riley was holding meth. To prove this, he engaged in a full body patdown. Then he ordered her to take off her bra and "shake her bra and shirt" to prove she hadn't stashed any meth there. Riley asked for a female officer to be present during this "search" but the deputy told her the law doesn't require female cops to search female citizens.

He then asked if she had anything illegal in her car. She said she had a marijuana roach stashed in a pack of cigarettes. At that point, Deputy Wilkey became verbally abusive. Then he decided to strike a deal with the alleged criminal. We'll go to the lawsuit for that because… well, it offers the driest recounting of a positively insane situation.

Wilkey then approached Plaintiff and asked her if she was "saved" and believed in Jesus Christ.

Plaintiff stated that she believed in Jesus Christ, but that she was not "saved" by her own choice.

Wilkey then told Plaintiff that God was talking to him during the vehicle search, and Wilkey felt the Lord wanted him to baptize the Plaintiff.

Wilkey further told Plaintiff that he felt "the spirit."

Um. Do what now?

These are words coming from the mouth of a sworn peace officer. And that's not the end of it. The option given to Riley was to participate in this highly-unconventional baptism presided over by an officer of the law or get thrown into the gaping maw of the criminal justice system with as much force as Deputy Wilkey could muster. If Riley agreed to a baptism, Wilkey said he would only cite her for marijuana possession and speak to the judge on her behalf. Riley complied with Wilkey's demands, which included grabbing towels from her friends house and following Wilkey's cruiser out to a nearby lake.

At the lake, Riley and Wilkey were joined by Deputy Jacob Goforth, who did nothing as Wilkey proceeded with the "baptism."

Wilkey told Plaintiff that Goforth was present because, in order for a baptism to be valid, a witness must "attest" to the ritual.

Wilkey then stripped nearly naked, with only his boxer shorts on.

Wilkey then gave Plaintiff the option to strip too, but Plaintiff declined.

Wilkey then lead Plaintiff into the near waist deep and frigid water, placed one hand on Plaintiff's back, and his other hand on Plaintiff's breasts, and completely submerged Plaintiff under the water.

Wilkey held Plaintiff under water for several moments, then with his hands still positioned on her back and breasts, raised Plaintiff from the cold water.

Plaintiff was shivering uncontrollably, and felt horribly violated.

Unfortunately for Riley, I doubt there's a case on point that will easily eliminate Wilkey's qualified immunity defense. But hopefully, the court will recognize this is batshit insane enough it doesn't need to find a case on point to find Wilkey violated her rights. To top it all off, Riley held up her end of the under-the-color-of-law bargain. Deputy Wilkey did not.

At no time did Wilkey ever [go to] court on Plaintiff's behalf and speak to the judge.

If that was the only thing Wilkey was being sued about, it would be enough to question his fitness for duty. But as you already know, this isn't the end of the accusations against the deputy.

The second lawsuit, filed in the same court on the same day, alleges Deputy Wilkey engaged in a suspicionless stop that turned into an impromptu roadside anal cavity search and the beating of a handcuffed man. And oh my god does it start with one of the dumbest things an officer has ever said to defend a pretextual stop. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

Wilkey followed Plaintiffs, and conducted a traffic stop of the Plaintiffs on the false claims of "window tint violation" and that he could smell the odor of marijuana as Wilkey followed the plaintiffs.

This assertion of Wilkey's exceptional olfactory senses is followed by a parade of brutalities inflicted on the passenger of the pulled-over vehicle at the hands of the deputy. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, this whole interaction was recorded.

Here's the lawsuit's description of those events:

Wilkey handcuffed James, and the individual Defendants took James to the front of one of their police vehicles.

Wilkey then began to grab James' genitals. When James told Wilkey that James had an untreated and large hernia and that Wilkey's actions were causing James pain, Brewer and Wilkey jerked James' arms high above his back, and slammed James face-down onto the hot engine hood, causing injury to James.

Wilkey and Brewer then beat James with fists, knees, and feet, slammed James to the ground, and continued their brutalization of James.

Wilkey and Brewer then removed James' pants and shoes, while still beating James.

Wilkey and Brewer then forced James' face back onto the hot hood of the same police vehicle and continued to jerk his arms high above his back, and beat James.

While Brewer continued to force James' face back onto the hot hood of the same police vehicle and jerk his arms high above his back Wilkey donned a set of gloves, pulled down James' underwear, and conducted an anal cavity search of James.

The lawsuit goes on to note that James suffered numerous injuries including "tearing of his anus" and an aggravation of his existing hernia. The charges brought against James (the deputies discovered drugs in his underwear) were all dropped after the dashcam video was made public.

Deputy Wilkey has been suspended, but it's the nice kind that means he'll be paid to do nothing while the Sheriff's Office decides what to do with him. It would seem obvious he's too expensive to keep around.

Filed Under: daniel wilkey, hamilton county, tennessee

Emails From License Plate Reader Company Hack Show Lobbyists Writing Legislation And Handing Out Talking Points To Congressional Reps

from the hooray-for-representative-republics! dept

Lee Fang of The Intercept has dug into the cache of internal license plate reader manufacturer documents dumped on the web earlier this year. In addition to hundreds of images of drivers and their vehicles passing through border checkpoints, the files also contained emails from Perceptics (the LPR manufacturer targeted by hackers) to Congressional reps, reminding them to hit their marks at the next Congressional hearing.

In April 2018, during an appropriations committee hearing, the Tennessee Republican took a more subdued and technical approach to immigration issues when quizzing then-Customs and Border Protection chief Kevin McAleenan. [Rep. Chuck] Fleischmann, looking down to read from a paper in front of him, wanted to know if McAleenan was on schedule to implement an upgrade of license plate reader technology at the border, as mandated by a previous appropriations bill.

McAleenan thanked the committee for its support and pledged continued work to upgrade LPR technology along the border.

A few days after the exchange, a lobbyist representing Perceptics, a tech company that sold state-of-the-art LPR cameras and technology to the government, emailed her team to confirm that Fleischmann had “asked about CBP’s plan to modernize its LPRs as we asked his office to do,” along with a link to a video clip of the hearing.

There's no element of surprise here. There will be no gasps of disbelief. About the only thing we can do is shake our heads at how willingly our public representatives will follow stage direction from corporations, especially when the talking points are in the interest of subjecting more people -- many of them US citizens -- to more surveillance.

It's amusing when a social media influencer accidentally posts some paid content from a sponsor/advertiser without changing a single word of the sales pitch. It's not nearly as funny when a Congressional rep reads directly from a company's email, demanding to know whether or not the CBP would be spending more LPR money in the near future.

Ultimately, this didn't work out for Perceptics. Not because Congressional reps decided they wouldn't be unofficial spokespeople for a number of corporate interests. The only reason Perceptics was dumped by the CBP was because it couldn't keep its information secure -- information that included its pointed conversations with legislators.

Other emails show Perceptics' lobbying firm, Ferox Strategies, assuring its client that both versions of competing immigration bills contained authorization for $125 million in "LPR modernization funds." The language in both bills appears to have come directly from Perceptics. Neither of these versions survived the 2018 legislative session, but Perceptics continued to press for preferential treatment. The emails say nice things about "open, competitive bid processes" but also make the point that cameras installed by Perceptics nearly a decade ago were in desperate need of updating. Additional emails show Perceptics' lobbyist firm had Texas Rep. John Cornyn on tap for functions, so long as lobbyists were willing to drop a little money in his coffers.

Once again, nothing truly surprising here other than the fact we actually have access to the emails. Of course, this is where the Freedom of Information Act fails to produce accountability. Congressional reps are exempt from the law. But they can't prevent data exfiltration. They can only hope to contain it.

Filed Under: license plate reader, lobbyists, tennessee

Educator Sued Because Of Things A Journalist Wrote Collects $10,000 In Legal Fees From Idiot Plaintiff

from the at-long-last-Rayburn's-Tennessean-nightmare-is-over dept

There's finally a bit of a happy ending to one of the more ridiculous defamation lawsuits we've covered. In June 2017, the ousted head of a Tennessee culinary arts programs took umbrage to things written about him by a local journalist. The article in The Tennessean expressed pleasure in seeing Tom Loftis removed from the culinary arts program and replaced by Randy Rayburn, who journalist Jim Myers felt was a positional upgrade.

Naturally, the ousted Loftis decided to [checks last 18 months of notes] sue his replacement for things a journalist wrote. Tennessee has no anti-SLAPP law, so the lawsuit managed to drag on for well over a year, including one appeal by Loftis after losing the first round.

The initial court decision should have ended it. The judge found Loftis could not even satisfy the minimal requirements to move it past the first motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Rayburn awarded legal fees. As Rayburn's lawyer, Daniel Horwitz, pointed out then, the legal system wasn't put in place to "litigate hurt feelings."

Loftis appealed. It went no better at the higher level. After pointing out Loftis' ill-advised decision to sue his replacement rather than the journalist who actually wrote the offending article, the court went on to state that no reasonable person would find the article offensive and that none of it -- no matter who wrote/said it -- even approached the outskirts of Libelville.

The appeals court also elicited this amazing confession from Loftis' legal representation during oral arguments:

Judge Neal McBrayer: “Why isn’t the Tennessean the proper party here?”

Gary Blackburn (Attorney for Mr. Loftis): “Your Honor, there were practical reasons for that . . . . It is easier to bring a lawsuit against the person who uttered the words than against a publication that buys ink by the barrel, as they say, and has lots of resources.“

Translation: we thought it might be easier to intimidate Randy Rayburn than the local news.

At long last, Randy Rayburn is finally getting paid for being jerked around by a year-and-a-half of ridiculous litigation.

Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn was awarded $10,000 for attorney's fees after a defamation lawsuit against him was tossed out.

It is the maximum total amount allowed under the state's frivolous lawsuit law. The cash payout comes after a state appeals court dismissed the suit against Rayburn, calling it "far-fetched" in its reasoning.

This is nice, but a solid anti-SLAPP law would be better. That would have put Loftis on the hook for all of Rayburn's legal fees, rather than limit it to a capped amount. It's better than nothing and it may serve as a deterrent for future would-be litigants who think suing someone into silence is the best response to criticism. Here's Daniel Horwitz's statement on the ruling:

Let this order also serve as a stark warning to anyone else who makes the mistake of trying to threaten or intimidate critics for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, jim myers, randy rayburn, slapp, tennessee, tom loftis

Tennessee Legislators Can't Stand Up To Cops; Keep Federal Loophole Open For Nashville Law Enforcement

from the asset-forfeiture-gone-mad dept

Earlier this year, the Tennessee legislature passed some very minimal asset forfeiture reforms. The bill, signed into law in May, does nothing more than require periodic reporting on use of forfeiture funds and the occasional audit.

What it doesn't do is require convictions. It also doesn't close the federal loophole, which allows Tennessee law enforcement to bypass state laws if they feel they're too restrictive. Given that state law doesn't really do anything to curb forfeiture abuse, the federal adoption lifeline isn't used quite as often in Tennessee as it is by law enforcement agencies in others states with laws that are actually worth a damn.

But local cops really really really want the federal loophole open. They've been applying pressure to Nashville legislators and it has had the expected effect. (h/t Daniel Horwitz)

Nashville on Tuesday renewed its participation in a controversial 1980s-era federal program that's allowed the police department to keep proceeds from seized assets taken from people suspected of crimes involving drugs.

After spirited debate, the Metro Council voted 25-5 with two abstentions to renew Metro's participation in the "equitable sharing program" with the U.S. Department of Justice and federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

The loophole Nashville law enforcement barely needs will remain open. And it will remain open because… well, budgets are tight and we can't keep asking state taxpayers to make up the difference.

Councilwoman Jacobia Dowell, who also voted for renewing the agreement, said not renewing the program would leave a hole in the city's budget.

"I have zero confidence in this council body to find $150,000," Dowell said, noting the city's budget struggles this past year.

So, instead of all taxpayers, Councilwoman Dowell wants to have just a few taxpayers pitch in to help cops -- taxpayers who happen to have property law enforcement thinks they didn't acquire legally.

Or not even taxpayers! Why even trouble those who reside in the state to give law enforcement some extra cash. Why not just take money from people leaving the state? That's the way Tennessee's "drug interdiction" teams work. According to law enforcement, they want to stop the flow of drugs into the state. That doesn't really explain their actions:

While drugs generally come from Mexico on the eastbound side of Interstate 40 and the drug money goes back on the westbound side, the investigation discovered police making 10 times as many stops on the so-called "money side."

Law enforcement doesn't seem to mind the drugs coming in, but it's certainly not going to let the cash head back out. Councilwoman Dowell thinks if cops can't lift money from drug dealers, they won't be able to buy the stuff they need to continue to allow drugs to flow into the state.

What Dowell absolutely doesn't want to see is her poorest constituents asked to dig even deeper to keep the drug interdiction units in business.

She said [the budget shortfall] would end up coming from Nashville's "most distressed and the impoverished communities."

Bless her heart. Oh wait.

Although civil asset forfeiture affects people of every economic status and race, a growing array of studies indicates that low-income individuals and communities of color are hit hardest. The seizing of cash, vehicles, and homes from low-income individuals and people of color not only calls law enforcement practices into question, but also exacerbates the economic struggles that already plague those communities.

None of the rationale makes sense. The drug teams that don't actually catch drugs need money to keep doing the job they're not doing and they need to take it from someone since the state's not going to help them out. The people who are going to help them out are either people leaving the state or low-income residents.

The problem is that when you say someone's going to have to come up with $150,000, someone will have to come up with it. And when that number increases -- and it will -- the shortfall comes directly from residents and other US citizens who have their belongings taken from them without even being accused of a crime.

$150,000 is only the cut from federal sharing. That's Nashville law enforcement's manageable money habit. There's more to it than the federal slush fund. Nashville law enforcement has created a drug enforcement ecosystem that can't be sustained without the seizure of millions of dollars every year. Even prosecutors recognize the problem.

[Nashville County District Attorney Glenn] Funk stated that on his first day as Nashville’s District Attorney, he was told that $1.7 million to $2 million would be needed to be brought in through seizures in order to keep the drug task force in operation. He also expressed concern that individuals were indicted or subject to forfeiture proceedings who would not otherwise have been if civil asset forfeiture were not a “cash cow.” He stated that officers sometimes target people with high-value cars so they can forfeit them and put the cars into service. General Funk provided these as examples of problems that arise “when we don’t have legislative oversight over the funds and assets . . . that are being seized.”

If you want to start fixing forfeiture abuse, start with the federal loophole. Agencies will realize it's not impossible to live without this money. And from there, you can start cutting them off from the main supply by eliminating civil asset forfeiture altogether by adding a conviction requirement. But if you can't even make this small move, you're not serious about fixing the problem. That's Nashville's problem -- one that harms citizens while keeping law enforcement flush with funds they really didn't earn.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, forfeiture, law enforcement, nashville, police, tennessee