The NYPD's Third 'Forfeiture' Option: Call Seized Items 'Evidence;' Never Give Them Back

from the the-system-works dept

It's not just asset forfeiture being used by law enforcement to take property away from people. With civil asset forfeiture (as opposed to criminal asset forfeiture), property is deemed "guilty," even if its former possessors are not. Kaveh Waddell of The Atlantic is highlighting another way law enforcement agencies are taking possession of property: by calling it "evidence" and playing keep away with former defendants who've had their cases dismissed or have been acquitted.

Last summer, Kenneth Clavasquin was arrested in front of the Bronx apartment he shared with his mother. While the 23-year-old was being processed, the New York Police Department took his possessions, including his iPhone, and gave him a receipt detailing the items in police custody. That receipt would be his ticket to getting back his stuff after his case ended.

But the ticket is worthless. His case was dismissed but no one involved in the seizure of his items showed any interest in returning them. He brought the court's dismissal to the NYPD to retrieve his iPhone but the property desk claimed it was being held as "arrest evidence" -- even though there were no more criminal charges forthcoming. He was sent to the District Attorney's office to ask for permission to obtain the no longer needed "evidence," but the office was less than interested in helping him reclaim his belongings.

Clavasquin needed to get a release from the district attorney’s office stating that his property would no longer be needed for evidence. Over the following three months, he repeatedly called the assistant district attorney assigned to his case, but he neither got a release nor a written explanation of why he was being denied one.

Then, with the help of an attorney at the Bronx Defenders, a public-defender office that had been representing him since the day after his arrest, Clavasquin sent a formal written request for the district attorney’s release. He got no response.

Clavasquin's iPhone was seized in the summer of 2015. His case was dismissed in December. The phone is still in the possession of the NYPD while Clavasquin has continued making monthly service contract payments for a phone he can't use.

The article points out that this noxious blend of asset seizure and bureaucratic malaise affects "hundreds, if not thousands" of New York City arrestees. The city is now facing a class-action lawsuit over this process, filed by Clavasquin and two others with the help of Brooklyn Defenders. In these cases, neither form of asset forfeiture -- civil or criminal -- is being used. Instead, the NYPD is tying up possessions seized during arrests in miles of red tape, subverting what would appear from the outside to be a straightforward, two-step process: case dismissed, items returned.

Even if someone is able to move heaven, earth, and the District Attorney's office, that's not the end of the frustration. One thing most arrestees carry often disappears into the evidence locker as well, greatly increasing the difficulty of retrieving possessions.

The NYPD property clerk, which actually holds on to the items, requires two forms of ID before releasing any property. Drumming up two forms of ID can be difficult on its own, but it’s made harder still if the person’s wallet, which may contain a driver’s license, is in police custody. (The property clerk won’t count a seized license as a valid form of ID.)

Not only is the process labyrinthine, frustrating, and nonsensical, but there's a clock ticking the whole time. A person has 120 days from the point the criminal case has ended to demand return of their items from the NYPD. If their case has been dismissed, they have 270 days to secure the elusive release form from the DA's office -- something that explains the office's disinterest in answering phone calls, emails or letters asking for this piece of paper. Once the clock runs out, the city is free to auction off the seized property.

If the DA's office wants to put seized items into indefinite limbo, all it has to do is classify them as "investigatory evidence," which means they might be used at some point in future to further a criminal investigation. The DA's office has every reason to put seized items out of reach of their owners and very little compelling it to relinquish control of property that can eventually be used to (indirectly) fund its office. In practical terms, being arrested by the NYPD means losing whatever you had on you permanently -- unless you have the funds to pay an aggressive lawyer to navigate the deliberately daunting retrieval process.

Also of note is the fact that the most common item in NYPD evidence lockers are cellphones. Considering how many of these were seized during run-of-the-mill arrests, one has to question assertions made by district attorneys like Cyrus Vance, who claim there are hundreds of phones prosecutors and investigators can't access because of encryption. Sure, the numbers may be correct (Vance claimed his office was dealing with 175 uncrackable phones), but one has to ask how many of these actually may hold evidentiary value, and how many are simply sitting around waiting for the clock to run out so they can be auctioned.

It's just another form of legal robbery, once you strip away the bureaucratic lingo and law enforcement statements that try to give this a veneer of respectability. When criminal cases are dismissed, seized belonging are "evidence" of nothing and should be released to their owners. Instead, law enforcement agencies and district attorneys offices are working together to keep non-criminals from their rightful belongings.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, evidence, nypd

DEA Accessing Millions Of Travelers' Records To Find Cash To Seize

from the trolling-for-dollars dept

The DEA -- along with several other law enforcement agencies -- has shown, over the years, that civil asset forfeiture is the tail wagging the dog. It may have been put in place to separate criminals from their cash, but is now used mainly to pad agency budgets and increase discretionary spending.

This attitude is summed up by the former DEA supervisor quoted in Brad Heath's (USA Today) investigation into the agency's forfeiture activities.

“They count on this as part of the budget,” said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.”

The monster is insatiable. The DEA loves taking cash from travelers so much it has hired TSA screeners as informants, asking them to look for cash when scanning luggage. It routinely stops and questions rail passengers in hopes of stumbling across money it can take from them.

But it goes further than just hassling random travelers and paying government employees to be government informants. As the USA Today's article points out, the DEA is datamining traveler info to streamline its forfeiture efforts.

DEA agents have profiled passengers on Amtrak trains and nearly every major U.S. airline, drawing on reports from a network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices, a USA TODAY investigation has found. Agents assigned to airports and train stations singled out passengers for questioning or searches for reasons as seemingly benign as traveling one-way to California or having paid for a ticket in cash.

The DEA's cash-seizing efforts add another layer of surveillance to the traveling experience. It's not just multiple agencies looking for terrorists. It's also at least one agency looking for nothing more than cash. And it works. Heath notes that the DEA's surveillance apparatus has resulted in at least $209 million seized from over 5,000 passengers over the last decade.

This is wonderful news if you believe the DEA's job is to take cash off the streets. Not so much if you believe it should be taking criminals off the street.

In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.

Case in point: the DEA seized $25,000 from a traveler after profiling her as a suspected drug courier, based on her itinerary and a past conviction for smuggling. But even though the DEA suspected her of being part of a trafficking operation, it seemed entirely uninterested in doing anything more than taking the cash.

Agents seized the money, and let Tillerson go. Her lawyer, Cyril Hall, said she was never arrested, or even questioned about whether she could give agents information about traffickers.

A year later, Tillerson produced paperwork showing the cash the DEA seized was lawfully obtained. The government agreed to give it back -- minus $4,000 prosecutors decided to keep just because.

The DEA, of course, claims that seizing cash (without pursuing indictments) is an essential part of its efforts to cripple drug trafficking operations. But after several decades of interdiction and forfeitures, most drug cartels seem to be every bit as financially healthy as the DEA is.

The perverse incentives of asset forfeiture don't just corrupt the DEA. They infect everyone involved in the process.

Five current and former agents said the DEA has cultivated a wide network of such informants, who are taught to be on the lookout for suspicious itineraries and behavior. Some are paid a percentage if their tips lead to a significant seizure.

[...]

[A]mtrak’s inspector general revealed that agents had paid a secretary $854,460 over nearly two decades in exchange for passenger information. A later investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the secretary initially looked up reservations only at agents’ request, but quickly “began making queries on his own initiative, looking for indicators that a person might be planning to transport illegal drugs or money on a train,” according to a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Airlines refuse to work directly with the DEA, but that hasn't stopped the agency from finding airline employees willing to peruse itineraries -- or pass them on to the DEA -- for a cut of the cash. The DEA can't use info from terrorist databases, so it has created an ad hoc network of informants to create a cash-focused surveillance network. Cash is king. Everything else about the drug war -- indictments, convictions, etc. -- is just a sideline.

“We want the cash. Good agents chase cash,” said George Hood, who supervised a drug task force assigned to O’Hare International Airport in Chicago before he retired in 2007. “It was just easier to get the asset, and that’s where you make a dent in the criminal organization.”

Welcome to the Drug War, where whatever's "easiest" is the government's focus.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cash, civil asset forfeiture, dea

Appeals Court Says It's Perfectly Fine For The DOJ To Steal Kim Dotcom's Money Before Any Trial

from the this-is-pretty-fucked-up dept

Last year, there was a series of very troubling rulings by a district court in a case related to the criminal prosecution of Kim Dotcom. This wasn't, technically, part of the actual criminal case against him, but rather a separate effort by the government to steal his money. We've been covering the ridiculous process of civil asset forfeiture for a while, and it's really problematic in general. In Dotcom's case, it's something of a farce. Remember, civil asset forfeiture is the situation where the US government effectively files a civil (not criminal) lawsuit against inanimate objects, rather than people. In this case, it basically filed a lawsuit against all of Kim Dotcom's money, arguing that it was the proceeds of a crime and therefore, the government should just get it all. Again, this is entirely separate from the actual criminal trial of Kim Dotcom, which has been put on hold while the extradition battle plays out in New Zealand (determining if Dotcom can be forcibly sent to the US to stand trial).

Just the whole process of civil asset forfeiture is troublesome enough. As we've detailed over and over again, it's basically a system whereby law enforcement gets to steal money and other stuff (cars are popular) from people, simply by claiming that they were used in a criminal endeavor. Since the lawsuit is against the stuff, if people want it back, they have to go and make a claim on it, and it's a fairly convoluted process. In this case, things were even more ridiculous, because the government argued that because Dotcom was resisting extradition from New Zealand, he could be declared "a fugitive" and the judge overseeing the case (the same one overseeing his criminal case, Judge Liam O'Grady) agreed. That effectively meant that Dotcom had no legal right to protest the government simply taking and keeping all of his assets -- and they moved forward and did exactly that.

It is difficult to see how this can be legitimately described as anything but theft by the US government. It got someone locked up in New Zealand, based on questionable legal theories, and while he was (quite reasonably) fighting extradition to the US (a place he's never visited and where he has no business ties), it initiated a separate legal process to keep all his money, no matter what happens in his extradition fight and criminal trial. On top of that, it effectively barred him from making an official claim on that money by having him declared a fugitive for exercising his legal due process rights to fight extradition. So while he exercises his legal due process rights in New Zealand, he's blocked from doing so in the US. And all of his money goes to the US government.

As we said after O'Grady's ruling came out, even if you think that Dotcom is guilty of a criminal copyright conspiracy, and even if you think he should be extradited, tried and locked up this should concern you. Let him go through the full legal process, with all that due process entails, and then determine what should happen to his assets. To take them before that's happened, through this questionable side process is immensely problematic.

And that's why Dotcom appealed, and many others -- including a bunch of criminal defense lawyers -- stepped in to argue this was crazy. Unfortunately, earlier today, the 4th Circuit Appeals Court upheld O'Grady's ruling and rubber stamped the DOJ's legalized theft of Dotcom's assets. You should read the 61 page opinion (which was a 2 to 1 decision, with an interesting dissent), but we'll hit on some of the low points here.

There were a number of different arguments raised -- with a big one not just being the basic due process question, but a jurisdiction question. Dotcom's assets are not in the US. His work was not in the US. So why does the US get to seize the money. The majority opinion basically says "because that's what Congress wanted -- it created this law to let the US government seize overseas assets." The opinion admits that there's a bit of a circuit split on this, but goes for it anyway.

When the amendments were introduced in the Money Laundering Improvements Act, Senator D’Amato included an explanatory statement indicating that subsection (b) was intended to provide the federal district courts with jurisdiction over foreign property:

Subsection (b)(2) addresses a problem that arises whenever property subject to forfeiture under the laws of the United States is located in a foreign country. As mentioned, under current law, it is probably no longer necessary to base in rem jurisdiction on the location of the property if there have been sufficient contacts with the district in which the suit is filed. See United States v. $10,000 in U.S. Currency[, 860 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1988)]. No statute, however, says this, and the issue has to be repeatedly litigated whenever a foreign government is willing to give effect to a forfeiture order issued by a United States court and turn over seized property to the United States if only the United States is able to obtain such an order.

Subsection (b)(2) resolves this problem by providing for jurisdiction over such property in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the district court for the district in which any of the acts giving rise to the forfeiture occurred, or in any other district where venue would be appropriate under a venue-for-forfeiture statute.

This is the point that the dissent disagrees on, and argues that the forfeiture should be blocked on jurisdictional questions alone. The key, according to Judge Henry Floyd, is that court decisions must be binding on parties, and not advisory. But that doesn't work when you're talking about an opinion concerning assets overseas, which will still then depend on the local government where those assets live to abide by the ruling.

The majority side-steps this concern by cabining it to the separation of powers context. One of the basic tenets of what constitutes a “case or controversy” cannot be elided so. The defendant in this action--the res--is outside of the United States and beyond the control of the district court. Absent control, no order of the district court can be binding on the res because the fate of the res is ultimately not in the hands of the district court. Instead, the res in this case is subject to the control of the courts of New Zealand and Hong Kong. The district court’s forfeiture order therefore merely advises the courts of a foreign sovereign that (in the district court’s view under the laws of the United States) the United States should have title to the res. Those courts, of course, with control of the res and with the authority vested in them by their own sovereigns, remain free to revise, overturn, or refuse recognition to the judgment of the district court.

As Judge Floyd notes, this makes the opinion nothing more than an advisory opinion, which is prohibited by Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the judiciary).

Back to the majority opinion, the court rejects the argument that this process to steal Dotcom's money without letting him defend himself violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the court says that because some of Megaupload's servers were based in Virginia, the jurisdiction is fine. Then, the court accepts the lower court's decision that Dotcom can be called a "fugitive" even as he's both in contact with the court and going through a perfectly legal process around extradition in New Zealand. Somewhat incredibly, the court decides that because he's resisting extradition, that's the same thing as being a fugitive hiding out. That... should be troubling for a whole variety of reasons. Basically, the court says that due process means that Dotcom has the right to be heard protesting the forfeiture, but that the only way to do that is to stop fighting extradition. It gets down in the weeds parsing the law in determining what the right standard is for determining if fighting extradition counts as being a fugitive, and decides that this was Congress' intent with the law -- that so long as the person is avoiding court, even if for reasons relating to the legality of extradition, they can still be declared a fugitive.

The claimants’ argument that they have legitimate reasons to remain where they are, such as jobs, businesses, and families does not disprove that avoiding prosecution is the reason they refuse to come to the United States.

I imagine that Dotcom's lawyers will now try to fight this as well -- seeking either an en banc rehearing or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Both are pretty risky, with a fairly high probability of being rejected. And, of course, as the dissent pointed out, there's still one other hurdle for the DOJ: the assets are held in Hong Kong and New Zealand, and they now need to convince authorities in those two places to hand over the money. And, as of right now, it's not clear if they'll actually let it happen.

Again, no matter what you think of Dotcom's actual criminal case, this result should be concerning to you. The use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture is the real issue here -- not the copyright questions. The ability of the US government to simply take millions of dollars based on accusations and without a guilty verdict in a trial should be tremendously worrying. If a full trial happened and he was found guilty, then there's a reasonable argument that, as a result of that, the money can be forfeited. But it's extremely problematic that the money can be forfeited in these circumstances, before the rest of the legal process has occurred. Under this ruling, even if Dotcom came to the US and was found not guilty, the US government would still keep all his stuff. Can anyone explain how that would be a fair and just result?

Filed Under: 4th circuit, article iii, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, copyright, doj, due process, hong kong, jurisdiction, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

Arizona Law Enforcement Charging Innocent Car Owners $2,000 To Reclaim Their Wrongfully-Seized Vehicles

from the a-victor-even-in-defeat dept

If you'd like some more evidence on how civil asset forfeiture has become legalized theft, you need only look at this investigative report by Curt Prendergast for Tuscon.com. Not only is it extremely easy for the government to claim assets are tied to criminal activity, but the obstacles placed in front of individuals to reclaim seized assets are numerous and expensive to navigate -- sometimes outweighing the value of the items seized.

On top of that, even when the state loses, it still wins. Arizona residents who have seen their vehicles seized for extremely tenuous connections to criminal activity are still forced to pay an incredible amount of money to reclaim items the state has agreed to return to their owners.

The fortunes of a local woman took a disastrous turn when she loaned her car to her son so he could take her granddaughter to school.

Her son was arrested on suspicion of credit-card fraud in Oro Valley and police seized the woman’s orange 2005 Mini Cooper, which she said in court documents she needed to drive to her $14-an-hour job at Red Lobster.

She hired a lawyer — the court does not provide lawyers in civil matters — to challenge the seizure and subsequent forfeiture proceedings. Authorities agreed on July 7 to return her car, but first she had to pay $2,000 into the Pima County Anti-Racketeering Fund, with $1,500 going to Oro Valley police and $500 to the County Attorney’s Office.

The state is the only entity allowed to engage in racketeering, apparently. Someone has to make sure all of these agencies who have already penciled in expected seizures on theirs annual budgets can still hit their numbers. Even if the government withdraws its claim on an asset, every agency with its hand out still needs a cut of the bogus take.

This case isn't an anomaly. It's standard operating procedure in Arizona when the government decides to "return" a vehicle.

Attorney Rogers, who represented a man who loaned his 2002 BMW to a friend arrested for selling drugs, said the case was typical and ended with a compromise in which his client agreed to pay $1,500 to the multi-agency Counter Narcotics Alliance and $500 to the County Attorney’s Office, as well as $190 in storage and towing fees.

Officers seized a 2013 Toyota Corolla in August 2015 at an illegal marijuana grow site in Tucson. The owner of the car said he let his son, who was arrested at the grow site, use the car, but that he had no knowledge of the grow site. His son’s name was on the registration, but the father said his son did not pay for the car in any way.

Prosecutors agreed to return the car in February in exchange for $3,431 and $316 in storage and towing fees. The Counter Narcotics Alliance received $2,573 and the County Attorney’s Office received $858.

As can be ascertained by these stories, there's no innocent third-party defense available to people whose vehicles have been used for criminal activity while not in their direct control. If you loan a vehicle to someone, you're directly responsible for their actions while using it. The local district attorney claims -- in comments to Prendergast -- that there were no "innocent" parties here… or possibly ever. This ensures a steady flow of ~$2,000 payments by unfortunate car owners in exchange for the full release of their vehicle by the agency performing the seizure.

Not that there's any shortage of seized vehicles. The county attorney's annual list of "significant accomplishments" always includes the dollar amount of seized assets, as though the abuse of a process meant to deter criminal activity still means something when it's used to separate innocent car owners from their vehicles. Presumably this dollar amount also includes payments resulting from the government's relinquishment of a person's vehicle -- but not its apparent entitlement to a hefty payout in exchange for returning belongings to their rightful owners.

Prendergast notes that the attorney's office tracks every vehicle it seizes. It's not quite as enthusiastic about providing information on the number of vehicles it's returned to owners at $2,000/per.

There's a reason the forfeiture process is largely opaque. It does law enforcement agencies no favors when citizens find out they're viewed more as revenue streams than people with rights and property.

[W]hat began as a means to a laudable end has, in many instances, become the end itself, where law enforcement authorities appear to focus more on forfeiting money and property than catching and convicting criminals. The reason for this is the perverse profit incentive built into civil forfeiture law: Much, if not all, of the proceeds of successful forfeiture cases are retained by the agencies that do the initial seizing, providing them with a funding mechanism that is totally outside the normal legislative appropriations and oversight process. Police and sheriff’s departments and prosecutors’ offices often end up having a significant budgetary stake in the outcome of forfeiture cases and of the process in general. Indeed, a deputy sheriff in Kane County, Illinois, wrote in a training book that “[a]ll of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine.”

And what a gold mine it is. When the government can cushion its losses with a $2,000 fees, there's nothing discouraging law enforcement agencies from seizing everything they can get their hands on, no matter how tenuous the connection to criminal activity.

Filed Under: arizona, asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cars, civil asset forfeiture

Oklahoma Cops Debut Tool That Allows Them To Drain Pre-Paid Cards During Traffic Stops

from the Square,-but-for-fucking-citizens dept

A couple of years ago -- as the ugliness of asset forfeiture abuse was becoming a mainstream media topic -- the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's senior Washington correspondent published a cautionary article featuring a very blunt headline:

American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money

In it, the CBC's Neil MacDonald pointed out that being "not from around here," coupled with rental vehicles and cash -- made visiting Canadians little more than rolling ATMs for "drug interdiction task forces" sporting nifty acronyms and friendly asset-sharing partnerships with federal agencies.

MacDonald listed a few tactics that might lower Canadians' chances of being robbed at badgepoint:

Avoid long chats if you're pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go.

Don't leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans.

Don't use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs.

Don't be too talkative. Don't be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don't have tinted windows.

And for heaven's sake, don't consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.

Cash = guilt to many law enforcement agencies, even if they're only interested in pursuing cash, rather than criminal charges.

WHERE'S YOUR MOSES NOW?

[T]he Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.

It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.

Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money.

Well… fuck.

So much for keeping the thieving, non-prosecuting cops off your back by carrying prepaid cards rather than cash. Highway-patrolling drug warriors are now going to be pressing the narrative that drug dealers and other criminals now use cards, because asset forfeiture has severely disrupted the cash-based drug economy or something.

There's literally no way to win. Any amount of money is considered inherently suspicious when it's in cash form. Now any amount of money -- no matter where it's stored -- can be declared the fruits of criminal activity by a cop with an ERAD device. Law enforcement can now drain any prepaid cards in your possession all without you having to leave the driver's seat.

And they have every incentive to do so. ERAD sells these devices to cops for $5,000 and takes 7.7% of the haul. (Here's Oklahoma's contract [PDF] with ERAD for the devices.) These devices aren't going to pay for themselves. Nope, citizens will pay for them -- twice. First, during the initial outlay and a second time when their cards are drained by law enforcement officers.

But it's totally cool because there's an almost non-existent chance you'll be able to recover improperly-seized funds at some undetermined point in the future.

"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," [Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John] Vincent said about any money seized.

Sure, that sounds like due process, but it really isn't. Law enforcement agencies have at least 30 days before they have to officially notify those whose money they've seized. From that point, seized assets head into a labyrinthine adjudication process in which the government does everything it can to keep the owners of forfeited cash from participating, starting with in rem proceedings that pit the state versus seized money, rather than against the person from which the funds were seized.

To navigate this, you need a lawyer, preferably one with experience in recovering forfeited property. That isn't cheap. During the long, expensive process, agencies will often try to push people into accepting low-dollar settlements that allow the government to keep money it hasn't proven is tied to criminal activity.

In many cases, the dollar amount is low enough that the expense of recovering it makes it a losing proposition. But those lower dollar amounts can also be the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for someone who's had their money seized. With this technology, officers will literally be stealing people's paychecks, as those who aren't able to secure a checking account are now almost exclusively receiving their paychecks on reloadable prepaid cards.

And, in almost every state, including Oklahoma, there's no conviction stipulation tied to asset forfeiture, meaning the government only has to stake a claim based on dubious "evidence" -- like the driver was traveling on a major interstate, had one too many air fresheners in the car, an officer thought he smelled marijuana, etc. -- to hold onto money it can't prove is tied to criminal activity.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, card scanner, civil asset forfeiture, debit cards, oklahoma, oklahoma highway patrol, police

Rep. Issa Calls Out Civil Asset Forfeiture As Letting 'Cops Go Treasure Hunting'

from the time-to-end-it dept

We've been writing an awful lot about civil asset forfeiture over the past few years, and how it's basically a program that lets law enforcement steal money (and goods) from people and businesses without ever charging them with a crime. Instead, they just charge the thing with being part of a crime and then keep the proceeds. Just recently, the federal government reopened its asset forfeiture "sharing" program that basically makes it even more lucrative for police to just take people's money and things. Most people don't even realize this is happening, but when they find out the details, they are almost all opposed to the program, that looks like little more than supporting legalized theft for law enforcement, with basically no recourse. In that last link, we noted that most lawmakers don't seem to care about this issue at all, perhaps because of the fear of being branded as "anti-cop" or something silly like that.

Thankfully, it appears that some lawmakers are finally starting to speak out. Rep. Darrell Issa, who is rarely shy about stating his opinion, has written an absolutely fantastic attack on civil asset forfeiture in the LA Times.

Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize property as long as they believe that the assets in question were somehow connected to criminal activity.

“As long as they believe” — that's the key part.

Authorities don't have to actually prove the person was guilty of a crime. They don't have to even file charges. The presumption of innocence is thrown to the wayside.

It's an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, but that's not even the most glaring problem with the system.

Under current law, most states allow police departments to absorb up to 100% of the value of the confiscated property — whether it's cash, cars, houses or guns — and use the proceeds to pad their budgets. It's an obvious conflict of interest — and boy, is it profitable for law enforcement agencies.

He points out an insane statistic: In 2014 "police officers took more property from American citizens under civil asset forfeiture ($5 billion) than criminals took in burglaries ($3.5 billion)." Think about that for a second. Issa admits that there's some "nuance" in those stats (in terms of what they include and don't include) but it's still pretty clear that law enforcement is taking an awful lot of things (and money) away from people with basically no due process at all.

Issa notes that some states have started to pass rules that limit asset forfeiture (including requiring an actual conviction against a person and limiting how much money can be kept), but law enforcement supporters have been hitting back hard against any such legislation. And, with the DOJ reopening its "equitable sharing" program, many local law enforcement agencies are just shifting their asset forfeiture efforts to the federal program, rather than the state program:

It should come as no surprise that in states that have implemented caps and limits, law enforcement simply relies on the federal program instead.

In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance found that whereas revenue collected under California's forfeiture laws had remained constant over the previous 10 years, revenue under the federal program had more than tripled.

Issa notes that it's time for legislation at the federal level to change things:

As more and more states reconsider their civil forfeiture systems, the federal government needs to set a framework for smart reform. That starts with closing the equitable-sharing loophole, and requiring police to satisfy a higher burden of proof to a judge before seizing property under federal law.

It is difficult to come up with a reasonable argument why the basic reforms mentioned here shouldn't be allowed. Requiring a conviction seems like a due process necessity. But, you can expect that there will be angry pushback from law enforcement groups that have been funding operations through all of this stolen money for a long time.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset fofeiture, darrell isaa, doj, equitable sharing, forfeiture, law enforcement, seizure

Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Us Over A Clearly Hyperbolic Techdirt Comment

from the guys,-calm-down dept

Earlier this week, one of our writers, Tim Cushing, had a story about yet another abuse of the civil asset forfeiture procedure. You can read that whole story for the details, but the short version is that US Customs & Border Patrol, along with Hancock County (Indiana) Sheriff's Dept. officers, decided to seize $240,000 in cash from a guy named Najeh Muhana. Muhana sought to get that cash back, but after a series of ridiculous communications, his lawyer was told that Customs and Border Patrol in Ohio was keeping the money, and that Muhana had "waived his rights to the currency." This was not true, and certainly appeared to be pretty sketchy. Because of all of this, Muhana filed a lawsuit against US Customs & Border Patrol asking for his money back.

Not surprisingly, this story of what many would argue is just blatant theft by law enforcement (the people who are supposed to be protecting us from theft) upset a number of folks who expressed their frustrations in the comments -- some using colorful language. That kind of language might not necessarily be considered appropriate in polite company, but isn't entirely out of place in internet forums and discussions where rhetorical hyperbole is not uncommon.

So I have to admit that I was rather surprised yesterday afternoon when we received a phone call from an agent with Homeland Security Investigations (the organization formerly known as ICE for Immigration and Customs Enforcement), asking where they could send a subpoena to identify a commenter on our site. Our lawyer, Paul Levy of Public Citizen Litigation Group, requested more information and we were told that DHS is interested in obtaining user information on the following comment by "Digger."

The only "bonus" these criminals are likely to see could be a bullet to their apparently empty skulls.

The person wronged probably knows people who know people in low places who'd take on the challenge pro-bono, after a proper "cooling-off" period.

Now, that's pretty crude and a bit ridiculous. But it's also pretty obviously not even anything remotely like an actual threat. First off, he's not suggesting that he's looking to do this at all. He's suggesting that "the person wronged" -- by which he likely means Mr. Muhana -- would somehow get some friends to do this. This is pretty ridiculous and almost certainly wrong. Second, he's actually responding to another comment, that reasonably bemoans the likelihood that those involved in all of this will receive no punishment at all.

Now, it's entirely possible that there are more details here involving a legitimate investigation, but it's difficult to believe that's the case given the information we have to date. Also, we have not yet received the subpoena, just the phone calls and emails suggesting that it's on its way. Normally, we'd wait for the details before publishing, but given a very similar situation involving commenters on the site Reason last year, which included a highly questionable and almost certainly unconstitutional gag order preventing Reason from speaking about it, we figured it would be worth posting about it before we've received any such thing.

We have told Homeland Security that we're willing to receive the subpoena and review it, but that based on what we know, we have serious First Amendment concerns about the request itself. Multiple Supreme Court cases, including Rankin v. McPherson and Watts v. United States have made it clear that people have a First Amendment right to say that they hope the President gets shot, let alone a law enforcement agent. It may be rude and uncomfortable, but if it is not an indication of a "true threat," then it is protected. And, as such, the idea of disclosing any information about someone who was clearly engaged in rhetorical hyperbole in an internet forum, likely leading to federal agents showing up at his or her door, is quite troubling to us.

Really, the most ridiculous part of this is why this is what's being investigated, rather than why the government was basically able to just walk away with $240,000 from this guy and ignore his attempts to get his money back.

We will keep you informed... as much as we are able to.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, comments, dhs, free speech, gag orders, homeland security, homeland security investigations, hsi, ice, indiana, najeh muhana, ohio

Lawsuit: CBP Took $240,000 From Man And Refused To Respond To His Forfeiture Challenge Until It Had Already Processed It

from the because-barely-any-due-process-is-far-too-much-due-process dept

Looks like someone might be getting their money back after CBP agents -- operating a great distance from the US borders -- seized $240,000 from a man traveling through Indiana. While driving along I-70 outside of Indianapolis last November, Najeh Muhana was pulled over for not signalling a lane change. That's when things got weird and a bit unconstitutional.

According to his filing for return of his money, Muhana's vehicle was searched "without consent, warrant or probable cause." The Hancock County Sheriff's Department officers even brought a drug dog to the scene, but failed to uncover any contraband. The $240,000 Muhana was carrying caught their eye, though.

Muhana (correctly) intuited the officers wanted to take his money. So he told them he had just been talking to the person the money was owed to. This story, which was untrue, seemed to upset the officers, who spent the next hour discussing something presumably related to how they could take the cash from Muhana -- because that is exactly what they eventually did.

This decision was made when CBP agent Scott Thompson -- operating roughly 250 miles from the nearest border -- arrived on the scene. Thompson took the money and gave Muhana a "receipt for property." Muhana, whose native language is Arabic, took this to mean the money would be returned when the CBP finished its investigation into whatever it was it thought was going on here.

Shortly after that, the Sheriff's Department took Muhana into custody based on a traffic stop that had occurred four months earlier in another state. Details on that arrest suggest Muhana may have been involved in selling unlicensed cigarettes.

Najeh Muhana, 39, St. Louis, was preliminarily charged with possession of untaxed cigarettes, according to a Henry County Jail List.

Muhana’s charges stem from an incident that initially began on I-70 in July when members of the Pro Active Criminal Enforcement Team pulled over his rental van for unsafe lane movement. Blankets covered the cargo area and police confiscated 2,400 cartons of Newport cigarettes, valued at more than $147,000, and 650 cans of infant formula, valued at $10,500.

The cigarettes had a Missouri tax stamp, said Major Jay Davis of the Henry County Sheriff’s Department, noting that in Indiana, it is illegal to possess such items without an Indiana tax stamp.

During this stop -- which occurred in November -- officers uncovered nothing more than cash. They may have believed the two were related, but they never bothered connecting the dots for the benefit of Muhana, much less used it as a basis for the cash seizure.

In fact, all the involved agencies did was pass the buck -- along with Muhana's bucks -- whenever he sought information on how to work towards the return of his money. The filing details multiple attempts to obtain any confirmation on the forfeiture, or who he should speak to in order to get the process underway. Further, there's no record that Muhana was ever notified of the CBP's intent to pursue forfeiture -- nothing beyond the mysterious "receipt for property" the CBP agent gave him.

Muhana began making inquiries a few weeks after the money was taken, beginning in December 2015. In January, CBP agent Scott Thompson told him the case had been turned over to the CBP's Ohio office. The following Kafka-esque chain of events is directly from the filing.

On or before January 19, 2016, Mr. Muhana's counsel contacted Eartha Graham, Paralegal Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Middleburg, Ohio regarding the status of the Currency.

On January 19, 2016, Ms. Graham responded via email to counsel, stating, "I will need something in writing preferably on company letterhead stating you are representing Mr. Muhana asap."

[...]

On January 20, 2016, counsel followed up with a facsimile to Ms. Graham, in writing,

In response to your email to me yesterday, this will confirm that I represent Najeh Mulhana relating to the seizure of three (3) bags of currency by the US. Customs Service on or about November 6, 2015, in Indiana. The seizing officer was Special Agent Thompson. Mr. Muhana is requesting return of the money.

On January 26, 2016, counsel again contacted Ms. Graham related to the Currency, asking, "Will the agency be sending me some notification regarding its intentions relating to the seized money?" She responded, "Yes, we will be sending something out soon."

On February 1, 2016, Ms. Graham followed up again with an email to counsel stating, "I just received word from our counsel to request a written statement sign (sic) by Mr. Muhana, stating you will be representing him for currency case." The same day, Mr. Muhana's counsel sent Ms. Graham an email with a copy of the law firm's engagement letter attached.

On February 8, 2016, counsel received a letter from Tessie Douglas, FP&F Officer, US. Customs and Border Protection, Middleburg, Ohio, dated February 4, 2016. In the letter Ms. Douglas stated,

This is with reference to your inquiry on behalf of your client Mr. Najehm Muhana, about the currency that was seized on November 6, 2015.

The circumstances of this case have been reviewed. It has been determined that since your client waived his rights to the currency by signing the abandonment form, he cannot make claims on the currency. The forfeiture process was completed on February 1, 2016.

The next day, Muhana's lawyer wrote back, pointing out several things. First, he had received nothing in the way of a signed waiver by Mr. Muhana indicating his relinquishment of ownership. Furthermore, even if Muhana had signed something of that sort during the arrest, he is unable to read or write in English and may not have known what he was signing. In addition, even if such a signed waiver exists, there's nothing forbidding Muhana from attempting to correct his mistake during the time between the seizure and its finalization. Muhana's attorney demanded the CBP provide him with a copy of the supposed waiver.

A reasonable request, one would think, especially when a quarter of a million dollars was on the line. But guess what? The CBP doesn't turn over that sort of paperwork to people it's taking money from. It will only turn that paperwork over to anyone who asks for it using a completely unrelated process. And that's only if it decides it isn't covered by multiple investigation-related exemptions. Behold: your tax dollars at work, giving you the finger over its cubicle wall.

There was no response until March 7, 2016. This time, counsel received an email from Rose Parks, Paralegal Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Cleveland, which stated as follows:

The subject-referenced case has been re-assigned to me, as Ms. Graham has left our department. Per my supervisors, we do not provide copies of abandonment forms. To obtain a copy of the form, you would need to file a FOIA request.

Muhana's lawyer fired right back, hoping to find someone willing to provide more info on the up-to-this-point nonexistent waiver.

Ms. Parks:

Thank you for your message. Please confirm that the Agency has referred this matter to the US Attorneys' Office per my prior email for determination regarding forfeiture. Again, my client is making claim to the money. I understood from my conversations with Ms. Graham that the case had been re-assigned to the US Attorney for that purpose. If I have misunderstood her, please let me know immediately.

Nothing there for Mr. Muhana either.

Ms. Parks then stated as follows in her follow-up response: "The currency has been forfeited and the case is closed. No referral is being made."

The money is gone, apparently, after having skipped some necessary intermediate steps. As the filing points out, the government must notify involved parties of the intent to pursue a forfeiture. This is to give people like Najeh Muhana a very slim window in which to raise a challenge. Muhana's lawyer says that -- contrary to the law -- he was never given written notice of the agency's intentions.

The agency claims (sort of) that it had no obligation to do so because Muhana had disclaimed his ownership of it. But the chain of communications clearly show Muhana had both claimed ownership and was interested in pursuing its recovery. The agent directly involved with the seizure was made aware of this in December 2015, less than a month after the funds were taken. The agency itself was notified in writing of Muhana's intent to challenge in January 2016 -- well before the agency's February 1st declaration that the money had been forfeited.

As Muhana's lawyer points out, this is clearly bullshit.

Here, the Agency knew that Mr. Muhana was claiming to be the owner of the Currency through the repeated inquiries of his counsel. Rather than acknowledge those inquiries and respond to them, the Agency delayed any response until after February 1, 2016, when it unilaterally declared a forfeiture of the Currency. Thus, despite actual knowledge that Mr. Muhana was the owner of the Currency, the Agency refused to provide written notice to him about the Currency being seized and the Agency's intention to declare a forfeiture.

Given what's detailed here, it strongly appears as though the CBP processed a forfeiture while skipping past all the due process niceties. If so, Muhana is likely to not only prevail, but "strongly prevail" in his claim against the agency, which means it will not only have to give him back his $240,000 but pay his legal fees as well.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cbp, customs and border patrol, doj, hancock county, najeh muhana

Court Says Government Needs More Than The Permission Of A Couple Of Underperforming Drug Dogs To Justify Seizure Of $276,000

from the evidence:-it's-a-thing dept

The Seventh Circuit Appeals Court has done something few courts do: told law enforcement it can't have that sweet, sweet "drug" money it lifted from two brothers for no other reason than that it felt there was something shady about its very existence.

Police responded to a call about a home invasion at the residence of Pedro and Abraham Cruz-Hernandez. While inside the house, officers came across a handgun, a small amount of marijuana and a scale. This apparently prompted the arrival of two drug dogs, considering they're not usually standard equipment for home invasion investigations.

When searching the brothers' van, police found $276,080. So, they took it. Why? Because their dogs said they could.

A police drug dog signaled the presence of drugs in Pedro’s van, which was parked outside the house. After obtaining a search warrant, the police discovered in the van a safe containing $271,080 in currency and two pages of handwritten notes including dates and numbers. The cash was bundled with rubber bands in stacks of $5,000. A second dog alerted to the safe. No drugs, however, were found in either the van or the safe.

It didn't matter that neither drug dog could adequately perform the single task required of them. The "alerts" were all the justification law enforcement needed to rob the brothers of their money.

As is standard operating procedure in asset seizures, no charges were brought but the "guilty" money remained in the possession of law enforcement. The brothers challenged the forfeiture. The government then tried to use a mistake any person could have made to justify its possession of the brothers' money.

The government also pointed to two alleged disavowals of ownership by Abraham: (1) a record created by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) six weeks before the police seized the safe, in which Abraham had said that he did not have any “equities” in the United States, and (2) Abraham’s application for cancellation of removal, filed with the assistance of immigration counsel six months after the seizure, in which he lists only $2,000 in “cash assets.” The government represented that Pedro and Abraham, when deposed, had testified that they told the truth to the police and to immigration officials.

The problem here is that Abraham was asked to list his cash assets. A normal person not versed in the convoluted fuckery that is asset forfeiture would reasonably conclude that his assets only include what's actually in his possession. As the government was still in possession of the $276,080 at the point Abraham was asked, he reasonably concluded he could only legally claim the $2,000 he had access to. The government took this reasonable conclusion and twisted it to mean Abraham had relinquished his claim on the $276,000.

In legal terminology, the government claimed the contradictory statements constituted a "sham affidavit." The court doesn't see it the government's way, though. (Emphasis in original.)

Changes in testimony normally affect the witness’s credibility rather than the admissibility of the testimony, and thus the sham-affidavit rule applies only when a change in testimony “is incredible and unexplained,” not when the change is “plausible and the party offers a suitable explanation such as confusion, mistake, or lapse in memory.”

[...]

Abraham’s explanation for his answer on the immigration form is not only plausible, but is correct. We suspect that many people—in particular immigrants completing a form for ICE—would not be aware that a legal claim is an asset. But whether they would or not, a legal claim—even a claim to money—is not itself a “cash asset.” See CASH, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining cash as “1. Money or its equivalent; 2. Currency or coins, negotiable checks, and balances in bank accounts.”). Moreover, when deposing Abraham the government’s lawyer did not ask about his understanding of a “cash asset” or whether his attorney had explained the definition of that term. There is no reason, therefore, to reject out-of-hand Abraham’s deposition testimony that he had been truthful in his immigration filings.

Not only that, the court notes, but an element common to nearly all asset forfeitures doesn't help the government's case much.

It is also telling that the government has presented virtually no evidence that the brothers are involved in drug trafficking. There was nothing to indicate past or current drug dealing by the brothers or anyone else living with them in the house, nor was there any suggestion that either brother used the bedroom where the apparent drug paraphernalia was found. Though drug dogs had alerted to the safe and currency, the government did not submit to the court any evidence of the dogs’ training, methodology, or field performance.

(Given this limited sampling includes both dogs "claiming" drugs were present when no drugs were, it's likely the government felt records on training, methodology and field performance would only have made its case weaker.)

Neither did the government point to evidence (e.g., an experienced drug investigator’s opinion) to substantiate its assumptions that the notes found in the safe were a “drug ledger” or that counting and bundling currency is something that only drug dealers would do. “Absent other evidence connecting the money to drugs, the existence of money or its method of storage are not enough to establish probable cause for forfeiture,” much less enough to meet the now-heightened standard of a preponderance of the evidence.

And, finally this little kick to the government's ribs:

Courts have concluded that the government failed to meet its burden in cases with better evidence than this [one]...

And with that, the Appeals Court sends it back to the lower court with the judgment in favor of the government vacated. Considering the brothers appear to have "substantially prevailed," the government may find itself cutting a check for legal fees. In hindsight, it would have been smarter to have returned the money when it became apparent there was no basis for a criminal case. But that's not how the government rolls. Cash is presumed guilty until proven innocent, even when it's little more than two underperforming drug dogs and a small baggie of marijuana "justifying" the seizure.

Filed Under: abraham cruz-hernandez, asset forfeiture, drug dogs, evidence, pedro cruz-hernandez, probable cause, seizure

Law Enforcement Forced To Hand Over $41K It Seized From Businessman At Airport, Plus Another $10K In Legal Fees

from the felled-by-their-own-bullshittery dept

An unidentified Techdirt reader sends in the news that Arizona law enforcement is going to be handing over $10,000 to Madji Khaleq as a result of a failed asset forfeiture attempt. This would be in addition to the $41,870 the DEA already handed back to Khaleq -- every cent of the cash federal agents seized from him at the Tucson airport.

Khaleq had a legitimate reason to be carrying $40K in cash on him.

Court documents show Khaleq told the Drug Enforcement Administration agent who seized the money that he owned a convenience store and check-cashing business in Denver, as well as a wholesale electronics distributorship in California. He said he came to Tucson to buy a smoke shop on South 12th Avenue, but the deal fell through.

But the DEA firmly believes cash = drugs even when there's no evidence pointing towards illicit sources or uses for the funds, so it relieved Khaleq of his burdensome bankroll. Local law enforcement then swooped in to claim its part in the haul… only to return it when Khaleq lawyered up.

Khaleq challenged the seizure in Pima County Superior Court and the Pima County Attorney’s Office withdrew its request for forfeiture of the money in November.

The $10,000 in legal fees due Khaleq will come from the County Attorney's Office and a Tucson-based counter-narcotics task force. Apparently the DEA has washed its hands of the whole affair after giving Khaleq the money it took from him.

The government is unhappy to be paying a drug trafficker an additional $10,000. Oh, yeah. It still believes Khaleq is involved in drug trafficking despite losing this lawsuit and 10 grand in discretionary spending.

In the March 10 stipulation of dismissal, Deputy County Attorney Edward Russo said the $10,000 is not an admission that Khaleq has shown he is “entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs or damages in this action.”

Also:

When asked if the County Attorney’s Office still suspected Khaleq of being involved in illicit activity, Johnson said: “Yes, we don’t just take money from people for no reason.”

The hell you don't.

And that's not the full extent of the government's BS. During its fight to keep the uncharged Khaleq from recovering his money, the County Attorney's Office attempted to keep Khaleq as far away from his money and his Fifth Amendment rights as possible.

Russo had asked Aragon on Jan. 11 if the county could present a report on a federal investigation purportedly of Khaleq without Khaleq or his attorney present.

[Judge Gus] Aragon denied the request, saying that to grant the request “would violate basic concepts of fairness and due process.”

Fortunately, a judge stepped in and prevented the government from further abusing Khaleq. Even when the government is clearly in the wrong, it still insists it's right. No admission of wrongdoing despite losing badly enough that the plaintiff was awarded legal fees on top of his original funds, and law enforcement still insists Khaleq is involved in illegal activity despite his lack of a rap sheet and zero evidence in hand to support its claims.

Filed Under: arizona, asset forfeiture, asset seizure, dea, law enforcement, madji khaleq