Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree

from the weird-how-that-works dept

Sometimes all it takes is a lawsuit and little bad press to make the federal government at least temporarily regret its thieving ways.

In January, the DEA was sued by Rebecca West and her father Terry Rolin after the agency lifted Rolin's life savings -- more than $82,000 -- from West at the Pittsburgh airport. The supposedly travel safety-focused TSA agents saw the cash in West's carry-on luggage and decided to notify State Troopers and the DEA. After a few extended conversations with West, the DEA decided to seize the money under the theory that a person with this much cash on their person must have obtained it illegally.

The Institute for Justice -- which is representing West in her lawsuit -- reports the DEA has suddenly and mysteriously decided the money agents took from West was probably honest money after all.

Terry Rolin’s life savings of $82,373 will finally be returned to him, nearly six months after it was wrongfully seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from his daughter Rebecca Brown as she traveled through Pittsburgh International Airport to her home in Boston. Without offering any apology for the harm caused by confiscating Terry’s life savings for six months, the DEA informed the Institute for Justice (IJ) via letter that: “After further review, a decision has been made to return the property.”

This looks like someone further up the org chart saw the bad press and lawsuit generated by this suspicionless seizure and told someone to get the suddenly tainted money the hell out of the DEA's coffers. The letter [PDF] is 99% formality, explaining nothing about the original seizure. It simply states that if Rolin owes any money to the government, the government will deduct it from the $82,373 the DEA deducted in whole from West's luggage six months ago.

The DEA could have done this at any point before being served with a lawsuit. Presumably this return of Rolin's legally-obtained life savings is being done to moot as much of his lawsuit as possible. It's not going to work. The lawsuit continues, with the Institute for Justice and its clients hoping to secure a win that might force the TSA to focus on travel safety (rather than cash) and the DEA to actually provide suspicion that's far more reasonable than whatever excuse agents are currently using to steal money from travelers.

“We are glad that Terry will get his money back, but it is shameful that it takes a lawsuit and an international outcry for the federal government to do the right thing,” said IJ Senior Attorney Dan Alban. “We know that this routinely happens to other travelers at airports across the United States. Terry and Rebecca are going to fight on until TSA and DEA end their unconstitutional and unlawful practices of seizing cash from air travelers without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.”

Hey, DEA: if you don't like being sued, maybe don't do stuff that will get you sued. I mean, that's the kind of logic you law enforcement types understand, right? Don't break the law, etc. Asset forfeiture is hot, unconstitutional garbage. You can't cripple drug lords by robbing random people of their life savings. But if the DEA actually went about the business of dismantling the drug trade, it might move resources away from its "taking cash from travelers" outreach program. And that would apparently be unacceptable.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dea, rebecca west, terry rolin, tsa

Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

from the at-least-$40k-in-reputational-damage dept

The Michigan State Police recently informed Twitter users that it's engaged in stealing money from drivers. I don't know what it expected from this announcement, but I'm sure spending a few days being ratioed wasn't what the agency had in mind.

Here's the first part of the MSP's "Yes, we steal money" announcement:

If you can't see the tweet, it says:

Trooper from First District Headquarters conducted a traffic stop for following too close on I-75 in Monroe County on March 3rd. Further investigation resulted in locating and seizing approximately $40,000.00 in cash. The driver was a 33 year old male from out of state and was

Here's the kicker, picking up where the first tweet left off:

not arrested. The investigation continues.

So, some alleged criminal, originally only suspected of "following too close" was pulled over, hassled into a search, and relieved of his $40,000 by state troopers. No arrest, but I guess the money was guilty of something.

This statement, issued a day after the tweets, doesn't really clarify anything. What it does show is the MSP enaged in catch-and-release drug enforcement, where suspected criminals are free to go, but not any cash they happen to have on them.

Lt. Brian Oleksyk, MSP public information officer, said the traffic stop and seizure were related to a narcotics investigation.

“We develop probable cause in order to seize money,” he said.

That's a blanket statement about ideals. That's not a statement specific to this "investigation," which began with a pretextual stop and ended in a windfall for the State Police.

But the most instructive thing about this whole experience is the hundreds of replies calling the State Police thieves. It shows people are pretty sick of hearing cops brag about how they took money from people without actually arresting the supposed criminals who were carrying the cash. Agencies engaged in civil asset forfeiture do not have broad support from the public. If they actually believe they do, they're lying to themselves.

Cash is still a legal way to pay all debts public and private. It says so right on the money. Traveling with cash does not make someone a criminal and the existence of cash isn't the same thing as actual probable cause. I doubt being ratioed on Twitter will make the MSP rethink its forfeiture programs. But it does make it clear many people see "forfeiture" and "theft" as synonymous.

Then there's the question of whether the MSP can actually do this. Last year, a law was passed effectively banning forfeitures under $50,000 without a conviction.

Starting in 90 days, the laws will prohibit assets taken in suspected drug crimes from being forfeited unless the defendant is convicted or the value of the money and property is more than $50,000, excluding the value of contraband.

Prosecutors and cops made highly-questionable arguments against the new law, claiming having to prosecute drug dealers would result in fewer drug dealers being prosecuted. Unless there's a loophole the MSP is planning to use (like the federal option), this set of tweets was the State Police announcing to everyone the agency was planning to break the law. Not a good look.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, bragging, civil asset forfeiture, legalized theft, michgan state police, michigan

Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture

from the someone-did-some-crime-somewhere-maybe-so-we're-taking-your-stuff dept

A 1996 decision by the Michigan Supreme Court set the precedent for the widespread abuse of civil asset forfeiture in the state. The ruling said being an innocent owner of property seized is no defense and any forfeiture predicated on the illegal acts of others could result in the actual owner being deprived of property without violating their Constitutional rights.

The state's law enforcement agencies took this ruling and ran with it. To ensure minimum legal hassle, cops are "fighting" crime by taking small amounts of cash and 20-year-old vehicles from people they imagine might have committed a crime, were thinking about committing a crime, or happened to wander into an area where crime exists.

The city of Detroit and Wayne County prosecutors are the busiest of the state's busy kleptomaniacs.

In an ongoing crackdown, Wayne County has seized more than 2,600 vehicles and collected more than $1.2 million in revenue from civil asset forfeiture over the past two years.

A proposed class action has been filed challenging the city's forfeiture program which deprives the owners of their property due to other people's actions. The lawsuit [PDF], filed with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, tells just two of these 2,600 stories. Both involve vehicle owners losing their cars because of someone else's alleged criminal acts -- even when no criminal charges were ever filed.

The first involves a woman who had to file for bankruptcy and now takes the bus because the city decided to take her car from her.

Melisa Ingram, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, knows the many abuses of Detroit’s system firsthand. Last summer her car was seized by Wayne County sheriff’s deputies after she lent it to her then-boyfriend so he could drive to a friend’s barbeque. Later that day, police pulled him over for slowing down in an area known for prostitution. Although he was never charged with a crime, police nevertheless seized Melisa’s 2017 Ford Fusion.

Ingram paid $1,355 to get her car back. Six months later, she again loaned the vehicle to her boyfriend while she attended a barbecue. As he was pulling away from the house, the same Wayne County deputies pulled him over and seized the car again, claiming the house he was leaving was supposedly connected to drugs or prostitution. Just like the previous incident, the car was seized immediately and no criminal charges were filed. Ingram could not afford the $1,800 the police said she had to pay to release her car.

A similar thing happened to another plaintiff -- only this time cops yanked the car out right from underneath him. His story is even stranger, but it had the same end result: law enforcement had one more car in its possession than it did prior to the stop.

In July 2019, a man with whom Robert [Reeves] sometimes works asked him to visit a job site where he was clearing rubbish. The man had a skid-steer loader at the site and wanted to know if Robert knew how to operate it. Robert demonstrated how to use the equipment and the two men planned to meet the next day to begin their work.

Robert then drove to a nearby gas station and went inside to purchase a bottle of water. As he was leaving, officers surrounded him and demanded to know what he knew about a skid steer that was allegedly stolen from Home Depot. Robert knew nothing other than that the other man had rental paperwork from Home Depot, which was consistent with Robert’s understanding that the equipment had been rented. After several hours of detention in the back of a police car, Robert was let go without being arrested. He has not been charged with anything.

Police seized Robert’s Camaro on the spot, along with two cell phones and $2,280 that he had in his pocket.

More than six months have passed since this seizure and Wayne County prosecutors have yet to move forward with forfeiture proceedings. With no proceedings, there's no way to challenge the seizure. Meanwhile, his car sits in an impound lot racking up fees. Reeves was told by the Vehicle Seizure Unit that he would need to hire a lawyer if he wanted to get any answers at all about his car and how to get it back. But all this did was force Reeves to spend more money getting nowhere.

Robert then hired an attorney, but employees of the Vehicle Seizure Unit and Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office refused to speak with his attorney, too. No one will take their calls, despite dozens and dozens of attempts to learn more.

Since the agencies involved in the seizure can keep up to 100% of proceeds from forfeited property, there's zero incentive for them to work with the victims of these programs, much less move forward quickly with forfeiture proceedings. And agencies appear to make it more difficult than the process already is by serving notification -- seemingly deliberately -- to parties other than the owners of the property. In Ingram's case, the first notice went to her boyfriend who was driving the seized car. In Reeve's case, he was never served at all.

These experiences aren't unique. They can't be. A single county doesn't seize more than 3 cars a day if it's not profitable. But unless the law is changed -- or state precedent overturned -- police will continue to take property from innocent owners because being innocent isn't enough to prevent a forfeiture. That's what the plaintiffs are hoping to change. The lawsuit seeks a ruling declaring the state's forfeiture policies unconstitutional -- a violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It's an uphill fight, given state court precedent, but a federal challenge may finally upend the terrible laws that ruin state residents' lives and deprive them of their property without any finding of criminal wrongdoing.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, legalized theft, melisa ingram, michigan, robert reeves, wayne county

DEA, TSA Sued For Stealing 79-Year-Old Man's Life Savings From His Daughter At An Airport

from the take-what-thou-wilt-that-is-the-whole-of-the-law-i-guess dept

The DEA doesn't really want to stop the flow of drugs into the country. Let's not kid ourselves. Better yet, let's not allow the DEA to kid us it's in the drug enforcement business. It's in the cash business. It wants to seize cash. It is so cash-focused it hires TSA agents to alert the DEA whenever they see cash in people's luggage. It also regularly peruses airplane and railway passenger manifests to find targets it feels might be carrying cash.

Forfeiture laws make this easy. They make seizing cash so easy hundreds of law enforcement agencies engage in the same fishing trips for cash, ignoring drugs and seizing money from drivers traveling out of the states they're supposed to be defending against incoming drugs.

It's not illegal to travel while carrying large amounts of cash. But it may as well be. The Institute for Justice is representing a 79-year-old man who had his life savings seized by the DEA at an airport -- a seizure that has not been followed up with any official accusations (charges, indictments) of wrongdoing.

Terry [Rolin], 79, is a retired railroad engineer born and raised in Pittsburgh. For many years, he followed his parents’ habit of hiding money in the basement of their home. When Terry moved out of his family home and into a smaller apartment, he became uncomfortable with keeping a large amount of cash. Last summer, when his daughter Rebecca was home for a family event, Terry asked her to take the money and open a new joint bank account that he could use to pay for dental work and to fix his truck, among other needs.

Rolin gave his lifetime savings of $82,373 to his daughter. She checked to see if it was illegal to travel with this large amount of cash. She discovered it wasn't and packed it in her luggage. But a TSA agent spotted the cash and detained her for questioning by Pennsylvania State Troopers. Eventually, she was allowed to leave. But she was stopped by DEA agents when she attempted to board her plane.

Here's what happened then, taken from Rolin and West's proposed class action lawsuit [PDF] against the TSA and DEA:

Despite Rebecca’s explanation, and without probable cause, the DEA agent seized Terry’s life savings because it was greater than $5,000 and was thus considered a “suspicious” amount under DEA’s policy or practice regarding the seizure of cash from travelers at airports.

DEA has continued to hold Terry’s life savings since August 26, 2019, and has taken actions to permanently keep the money using civil forfeiture.

Neither Terry nor Rebecca has been arrested for or charged with any crime.

The initial and continued seizure of Terry’s life savings since August 26, 2019, has prevented him from replacing his teeth and repairing his truck, among other expenses.

According to the TSA's own policies, it should not be scanning people's luggage for "suspicious" amounts of cash. It is only supposed to be concerned with items that threaten airline security, like explosives and weapons. The suit says TSA agents routinely seize cash in contravention of these policies and do so even when it's been determined the traveler and their belongings pose no security threat.

Instead agents flag any "large" amount of currency, which appears to be in the area of $10,000 or more. This is likely due to multiple law enforcement agencies falsely claiming large amounts of currency are suspicious, if not illegal. The DEA leans heavily on the TSA to perform this extraneous screening for it.

The DEA's standards for "suspicion" are even laxer than those unofficially followed by the TSA. According to the lawsuit, the DEA will seize any amount over $5,000 whether or not probable cause exists to perform the seizure. Once the DEA has the money, it will eventually begin forfeiture proceedings. Time is of the essence for those fighting to get their money back, but the DEA is never in any hurry because it's not its money and it has no immediate need for funds.

We already know the DEA is lousy and focused on easy wins, preferably those that involve forfeited funds. But the TSA is part of the problem. It focuses on cash despite it having no statutory authority to seize people simply because they're carrying cash. The TSA does not prohibit people from carrying cash and has produced no evidence to back up its apparent belief these people are more dangerous or likely to be engaged in illegal activities as other passengers not carrying cash.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration finding the TSA and DEA's actions unconstitutional and an injunction forbidding either agency from seizing individuals or their belongings solely on the basis of them carrying cash -- something that is not actually illegal. If it is granted class status, this will make it much easier -- and much less expensive -- for others who have been abused by these federal agencies to demand their money back.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dea, legalized theft, terry rolin, tsa

Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims

from the government-is-just-another-word-for-the-people-telling-you-what-you-can-afford dept

Here in the United States, asset forfeiture is pretty straightforward. In civil asset forfeiture, the government decides it wants something you have and files the paperwork to take it. In criminal asset forfeiture, the government takes your stuff pre-trial to prevent you from mounting a decent defense and finalizes the transfer of wealth post-conviction.

In both cases, the government takes stuff before anything's been proven in court. Only in criminal asset forfeiture does the government have to do much work convincing a judge it should have your property instead of you.

Legalized theft in the United States is scary, abusive, and the target of much criticism. It's a one-sided process that favors the accusers.

But at least you still get to keep the clothes you're wearing, unlike in the Netherlands. Dutch police are willing to disrobe anyone they suspect can't afford (at least not with legally-obtained funds) the clothes on their backs, the watches on their wrists, and any other accoutrements cops think a person couldn't have purchased without ill-gotten gains.

Meanwhile, the UK government allows law enforcement to secure "unexplained wealth orders," which allows them to seize anything someone can't produce receipts for. To move forward with these orders, there has to be at least some articulable suspicion the wealth may have been derived from a serious criminal act. The downside is the power has also been granted to tax collection authorities, which turns less-serious crimes like owing back taxes into "serious" crimes since it's subject to the same legalized theft program. No convictions need to be secured before the government can start taking stuff away from people. And the burden of proof rests almost entirely on the person whose property is being taken.

It appears Trinidad and Tobago has instituted the same sort of government-enabled theft program. And it actually beat the Brits to it by a couple of months. The islands' "explain your wealth" law went into effect in April of this year, but it took until December for anyone to take it out for a test drive.

The law allows law enforcement to freeze/seize assets, utilizing either restriction or forfeiture orders. The process starts with the filing of a request by law enforcement or revenue officers. All the government needs to do is tell the court it suspects the wealth is unexplained. The burden of proof is on the accused.

Where the High Court "is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the total wealth of the respondent exceeds the value of his wealth that was lawfully obtained, it may make a Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order, requiring the respondent to file a declaration and appear before the High Court to answer questions relative to his assets for the High Court to decide whether to make an Unexplained Wealth Order."

After this, a notice of the making of the Order shall be served on the respondent.

Here's who the government is going after with its first "unexplained wealth order."

A St Helena couple has 28 days to explain their wealth after a High Court judge granted the police an order under new legislation.

Justice Carla Brown-Antoine granted the order on Monday after finding the police had presented enough evidence to justify it.

The order was granted ex-parte.

Under the judge’s orders, the two are each to file a declaration under sections 58(1) and 61(1)of the Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act within 28 days, and are to appear in court on January 7.

There are few details on who this couple is or why they're suspected of having too much stuff. But it could be anybody, really. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago says the law will be used to go after "bandits who wear gold chains and drive Mercedes Benz and BMWs." Looking for gold and imported cars casts a pretty wide net. There's really no downside for the government since citizens will have to do all the evidentiary heavy lifting.

Oh, and the AG tossed out this horseshit chestnut while arguing on behalf of giving law enforcement the power to strip people of their possessions without having to prove any connection to criminal activity:

If in­no­cent cit­i­zens have noth­ing to fear or hide, the Civ­il As­set Re­cov­ery Un­ex­plained Wealth Bill should not scare them.

This was the mes­sage At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi sent to the pop­u­la­tion in Par­lia­ment yes­ter­day, as he read out the 75-clause bill which seeks to cre­ate a civ­il as­set re­cov­ery and man­age­ment agency for the re­cov­ery of crim­i­nal prop­er­ty through re­stric­tions in deal­ing with civ­il as­sets re­stric­tion, for­fei­ture of crim­i­nal prop­er­ty and the man­age­ment of crim­i­nal prop­er­ty.

Yeah, but the government decides who's innocent. It makes the first judgment call when it requests an order. Then a judge decides whether or not those accused of having too much money can explain why they have the things they have. If the explanations aren't good enough, the government gets to keep the stuff it's seized and the question of innocence (in terms of criminal accusations) goes completely unaddressed.

The forfeiture system in the United States has plenty of perverse incentives. The one in place in Trinidad and Tobago is pretty much nothing but perverse incentives -- a simple way for the government to deprive people of their property with only the thinnest pretense of due process.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, explain your wealth, forfeiture, legalized theft, trinidad and tobago, you can't afford that

South Carolina Judge Says State's Asset Forfeiture Programs Are Unconstitutional

from the and-SC's-programs-are-similar-to-others-all-over-the-nation dept

Asset forfeiture certainly seems unconstitutional. But we don't have a lot of case law actually saying that. Something that began in the United States as a way to punish wrongdoers located elsewhere in the world, but whose property (usually a ship and its contents) had sailed into US jurisdiction, is now used by American law enforcement to take cash, vehicles, and whatever else they can haul away from people they think smell like weed.

The US government followed British law for its take on asset forfeiture. And yet, it was hardly ever used until the 20th century. Things ratcheted up during Prohibition, then faded away again. The New Prohibition -- the never-ending Drug War -- brought it back. And it's bigger than ever, despite the public's growing awareness that most of what's called "civil asset forfeiture" is just legalized theft.

The Supreme Court of the United States said one state's forfeiture program was unconstitutional. Citing the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive fines, the Court said a program that allows cops to take a $42,000 vehicle from a person charged with a crime that only generates a $10,000 maximum fine is unconstitutional. This was criminal asset forfeiture -- there was a conviction involved -- but the ruling seemed to signal seizures where no criminal charges are brought would make any amount excessive.

The other recent ruling against forfeiture came from a federal judge in New Mexico. The Albuquerque Police Department's seizure of vehicles from drivers arrested for driving under the influence was called unconstitutional. It was also unlawful. A law passed by the state legislature banned this practice, but the PD didn't actually stop until after this ruling.

So, asset forfeiture continues pretty much unabated. Fortunately, there's been another ruling handed down that says pretty much everything about civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional… in multiple ways. The downside is that, for now, it only affects part of one state.

A South Carolina circuit court judge in Horry County has ruled the state's civil asset forfeiture law unconstitutional, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments.

While the decision by 15th Circuit Court Judge Steven H. John doesn't set precedent beyond his courtroom, it could set the table for a state appellate court to determine whether South Carolina needs to enact reforms to its law.  

South Carolina's asset forfeiture programs are definitely in need of reform. Troopers camp on outbound highways to shake down drivers for cash. Cops respond to reports of crime by looking through victims' houses for any contraband that might excuse walking off with their cash. In one case, cops searched the house of a murder victim and helped themselves to $1,700 they found while looking for evidence of the crime they could hardly be bothered to investigate. Then they moved forward with the forfeiture, sending the notice of the PD's claim to the murder victim.

The decision [PDF] doesn't pull any punches. Judge John can't find anything he likes about the state's forfeiture programs. First up, it's the Eighth Amendment, which -- as incorporated by South Carolina's Constitution -- forbids excessive fines. Here, the judge draws the line the Supreme Court of the United States didn't: forfeitures without convictions makes any seizure excessive. [emphasis in the original]

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

[S]outh Carolina's forfeiture statutes would allow law enforcement to seize millions in assets from an individual when the maximum fine authorized by law is minimal or when no crime has been committed at all. This unfettered authorization to seize unlimited amounts of property from citizens without regard to the proportionality of the offense committed -- indeed, without evidence proving that the individual committed an offense -- compels this Court to find that the statutory scheme is unconstitutional and must be invalidated…

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated by the burden shifting that occurs during forfeiture proceedings. This forces citizens to prove the seized property was acquired through legal means while only asking the government to show courts there's a small possibility it's correct in its assumptions of illegal origin. The entire process is backwards. Any system that allows the government to take property from individuals without even charging them with a crime wreaks havoc on the due process supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution.

But that's not the only violation of these rights. The judge points out that the perverted incentives forfeiture programs create do further damage to the Constitution.

Forfeiture programs in South Carolina have an unconstitutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases because, in practice, these programs set their own budget and can spend forfeiture funds in any amount and on any items that they choose, including recurring expenses, and without any meaningful oversight. "Thus, there is a 'realistic possibility' that forfeiture officials' judgment 'will be distorted by the prospect of institutional gain' -- the more revenues they raise, the more revenues they can spend."

Because the revenues generated by the forfeiture programs are used to pay the expenses of the forfeiture programs, to justify the salaries of forfeiture employees, and to maintain a level of discretionary spending that would not otherwise be available to the agencies involved, enforcement personnel have an institutional financial incentive to vigorously pursue forfeitures regardless of the merits of the action.

On top of that, there's the quasi-judicial process, which is designed to efficiently separate people from property cops have seized from them. That's another string of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

Under S.C. Code the seizing agency is required to file a forfeiture action within a reasonable time of the seizure. The statute does not define a reasonable time. The law permits a seizure without a warrant if the seizure is made as incident to arrest or if probable cause exists to believe that the property was used in violation of the drug laws… The statute does not have a provision for any type of pre-seizure or post-seizure hearing to determine if probable cause exists… [T]he law does not provide for any judicial review or judicial authorization prior to or subsequent to the seizure.

In practice, many seizures under South Carolina's forfeiture laws are not followed up by the filing of a forfeiture action, leaving many defendants with the choice of retaining an attorney to file a civil action against the state or simply allowing law enforcement to keep their money or property.

Because the statutes do not require a pre-seizure or post-seizure hearing, S.C. Code 44-53-520 and S.C. Code 44-53-530 do not comply with the due process clause of Article 1, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Judge John pitches a shutout. Asset forfeiture in almost any form is unconstitutional. Civil asset forfeiture in any form is unquestionably unconstitutional. Where the government chooses to take this from here will be interesting. Does it take the loss and limit the damage to this judge's courtroom, meaning it will have to hope any forfeiture proceedings it engages in are routed around this new damage? Or does it challenge the ruling and risk having this spread across the state? If the agencies affected are greedy enough, they might just act against their own interest. And that could be good news for South Carolinians.

Filed Under: 14th amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, legalized stealing, police, south carolina

Your Money Or Your Life: Louisville Cops, Prosecutors Dropping Hefty Trafficking Charges In Exchange For Seized Cash

from the participation-trophies-for-all-drug-war-participants dept

Law enforcement agencies like to portray asset forfeiture as an important weapon in the Drug War arsenal -- one capable of toppling cartels and kingpins. Every so often, a large amount of cash and drugs is trotted out in front of reporters as evidence of this claim.

The reality is much, much different. For all intents and purposes, civil asset forfeiture is a government crime of opportunity. Any search that yields cash is a win for the agencies that profit from the seizure, even when there's no evidence the cash taken has any link to criminal activity. Pretextual traffic stops, knock-and-talks, stop-and frisk programs… all of these have the potential to turn everyday police work into something profitable.

WFPL's examination of the Louisville (KY) Metro PD's asset forfeiture paperwork shows the agency isn't really targeting drug traffickers and criminal organizations with its seizures. It's just lifting money from whoever it can, like people who've done nothing more than produced an offensive odor. (You are not misreading that sentence.)

Theron Carson and his friends were smoking weed and playing video games when the police showed up at his door.

It was 1 a.m., and the officers told Carson someone complained about the smell. The quickest resolution of the problem, they told Carson, was to allow them to search his Newburg apartment.

After police found his weed and his digital scale, they emptied his wallet. Then they charged him with drug trafficking.

Carson, now 24, says he is not a drug dealer. The $1,200 police took was earned legally, he said, and a mix of rent money, bill money and cash he and his girlfriend socked away in preparation for their daughter's birth.

Carson wanted the money back. Prosecutors offered him a deal that would allow him to plead to a misdemeanor… but only if he surrendered all of the cash.

This is standard operating procedure for the LMPD and the prosecutors it works with. Any cash seized is treated essentially as a bribe arrestees didn't know they were offering. In 25% of the cases examined, charges were dropped in exchange for the LMPD keeping the money.

Local prosecutors pretend the money is not a motivator. They're apparently putting alleged criminals back on the street (minus their cash) because they're just so great at prosecutorial discretion... I guess.

Jefferson County Commonwealth’s Attorney Thomas B. Wine said in an interview with KyCIR that losing cash is the “cost of doing business” if you’re caught with drugs and money, regardless of how the case is resolved.

“To somehow suggest that money is going to make a difference for any of us, at least here on the prosecution side, is ridiculous,” Wine said. “It’s not worth it for the prosecutors that I work with.”

So. Much. Discretion.

Wine estimates nearly 98 percent of cases his office prosecutes are settled with a plea deal.

But no profiting from cash grabs. No sir.

Kentucky law dictates that the police department keeps 85 percent of what it seizes, and the rest goes to the state’s prosecutors.

The LMPD seizes nearly $1 million in cash per year. It takes a while to add up when cops -- utilizing their training and expertise -- are able to turn almost anyone into a "drug trafficker" for the purposes of relieving them of their cash. According to WFPL's investigation, almost 40% of the seizures involved less than $1,000. And yet, officers taking property from arrestees tend to describe any amount of cash as "large" to better fit the drug trafficking narrative being pushed to create charges significant enough to be used as leverage against defendants and their natural desire to be reunited with their seized funds.

Police stopped a man in January 2017 for failing to use a turn signal while leaving “a high narcotics area,” according to an arrest citation. The officer reported smelling marijuana but didn’t find any; instead, a search netted a needle loaded with suspected meth, two pills and a “large amount of money”: $231.

An LMPD officer arrested a man suspected of selling synthetic marijuana at a west Louisville gas station in March 2017. In the arrest citation, the officer noted the man possessed a “large amount of lower denomination bills” in his wallet. The “large” amount of cash officers seized: $33.

These are the people prosecutors ring up on drug trafficking charges. And these are the ones whose cash they take to secure plea deals for lesser charges. Even then, the deliberately-broken system still doesn't work. The $33 kingpin listed above lost his cash and was convicted of drug trafficking.

One more data point: the LMPD's drug dogs are only "right" half the time.

In an analysis of 139 searches since Jan. 1, 2017, in which a dog indicated that drugs were present, 45% turned up no narcotics.

Cops don't know the drug dog is wrong until after the search is completed. The drug dog is really there to give officers permission to perform a warrantless search. On the dog green lights the search, anything discovered can be seized by officers, including whatever cash happens to be in the car or on the driver. A drug dog is a mobile warrant exception.

Programs where random citizens are relieved of cash just because they happen to be in possession of small amounts of drugs isn't going to stop the flow of drugs. They'll continue to flow as freely as citizens' cash into the accounts of the PD and prosecutors. No one's in any hurry to give up this revenue stream, even if law enforcement resources would be better used elsewhere.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cash, civil asset forfeiture, dropped cases, legalized theft, louisville, money, prosecutors

Pennsylvania Prosecutor Built A Surveillance Network Using Forfeiture Funds And Compromised Chinese Cameras

from the who-says-the-system-doesn't-work dept

A new report from Mike Wereschagin for The Caucus details the disturbing surveillance network that's been set up around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania using a fortuitous combination of forfeiture funds and zero oversight. The camera network utilizes cameras made by blacklisted Chinese firms and appears to have no statutes or guidelines governing its use.

The entity behind this surveillance network isn't one of the law enforcement agencies that patrol the area. Instead, this is the work of a local prosecutor who seems willing to ignore anything that resembles best practices for government surveillance.

The district attorney for Pennsylvania’s second-most-populous county has assembled a network of advanced surveillance cameras in and around Pittsburgh and has enlisted colleagues in four surrounding counties to extend its reach into their jurisdictions.

Unlike other law enforcement agencies that have deployed this technology, though, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. outsourced its monitoring to a private company, gave other police departments access to it with no written restrictions on how they can use it and purchased Chinese-made cameras that are so vulnerable to domestic and foreign hacking that the Department of Defense considers them a national security threat.

The cameras purchased by the DA's office come from two Chinese manufacturers that have been blacklisted by the federal government because of their security flaws. Dahua Technology Co. and Hangzhou Digital Technology Co. provided the cameras used in Pittsburgh. As of August 13, federal installations are no longer allowed to purchase from these companies or utilize any already-purchased equipment. The cameras in use around Pittsburgh don't belong to any federal agency, but that doesn't eliminate the security threats posed by their ongoing use.

The DA's spokesperson, Mike Manko, says the Chinese cameras that phone home aren't a problem because, well, only random Pittsburgh residents (and their vehicles) are affected.

Hacking is “not a significant concern,” Manko wrote.

“We do have security protocols that would let us know of an intrusion, and other than being able to see the feeds of the cameras, the access to any type of information is extremely limited,” Manko wrote.

Yep. No big deal. Just foreign operatives watching US citizens via cameras these operatives sold to a US government agency. Hangzhou, the other camera provider for the DA's camera network, is a subsidiary of China's state-run China Electronics Technology Group.

The cameras already utilize license plate reader tech. The documents obtained via public records requests show these images are retained for up to six months. The DA's office claims there's been no breach of this system via its insecure cameras, but the hands-off approach the DA has taken to regulating use doesn't exactly instill confidence in the office's attention to detail.

Manko said access to the network is “limited, protected and subject to audit.” It’s unclear under what conditions, though. The Caucus requested copies of agreements governing the use of the cameras and, in response, Zappala’s office said none existed.

And, as if it wasn't enough that the DA's office doesn't appear to care that Chinese operatives might be helping themselves to camera feeds, the DA's office thinks adding facial recognition tech to the mix is the next step forward, starting with the possibly-compromised cameras already installed in local schools.

“Down the road is facial recognition,” Dick Skrinjar, a project manager in Zappala’s office, told the Downtown Clean + Safe Community Forum in Pittsburgh’s Cultural District in February.

“Any idea how many kids in public schools are on probation?” Skrinjar asked.

Two thousand, he told them.

“We have their pictures,” Skrinjar said. “We can put them in the system and restrict where these people go, and keep them out of areas they’re not supposed to be in.”

Well, I guess if you're going to emulate Chinese-style surveillance tactics, it makes sense to use Chinese cameras. The DA's spokesperson agreed that discussions with school administrators about facial recognition tech have taken place but nothing is in place at the moment. But it definitely sounds like when this tech is inevitably rolled out, it will be in schools first. According to the spokesperson, "no other use of facial recognition has been pursued."

Pittsburgh students are going to be the DA's lab rats for facial recognition tech. Keep that in mind once the statements about solving serious crimes or capturing dangerous criminals are made in defense of facial recognition rollouts by the DA or local law enforcement. Also keep in mind that asset forfeiture makes this sort of thing possible, giving the DA's office money it can spend without having to run its plans past anyone else in the local government. This makes cobbling together a problematic surveillance system like the one in use here that much easier.

Filed Under: allegheny county, asset forfeiture, chinese cameras, forfeiture, pennsylvania, pittsburgh, security, stephen zappala, surveillance
Companies: dahua technology, hangzhou digital

Ninth Circuit Upholds Its Previous Declaration That Cops Stealing Your Stuff Doesn't Violate The Constitution

from the and-cops-are-still-not-on-notice-they-can't-just-steal-stuff dept

Earlier this spring, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court basically said it's okay for cops to steal property from citizens. This isn't because stealing is okay. It isn't. It's illegal. It's that stealing someone's possessions after they've been seized with a warrant doesn't violate the Constitution.

In this case, officers, who were engaged in an illegal gambling investigation, raided a couple's home, walking away with far more property than they officially said they did:

Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from the properties. Appellants allege, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins. Appellants claim that the City Officers stole the difference between the amount listed on the inventory sheet and the amount that was actually seized from the properties.

Despite it being apparently obvious that being illegally stripped of personal possessions would interfere with a person's direct interest in the property they no longer have, the court extended qualified immunity to the officers. It reasoned that theft, while illegal, isn't unconstitutional, even when it's the government stealing from citizens.

The panel determined that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant.

The Ninth Circuit then withdrew this opinion, suggesting it may have had second thoughts about allowing officers to engage in theft so long as they have a warrant. It needn't have bothered. The superseding opinion [PDF] changes nothing. It points out that only one other circuit has reached the conclusion that theft by law enforcement officers violates the Constitution, but that opinion was unpublished, which means it simply doesn't count.

Since there's no precedent out there in the federal court system, the Ninth isn't going to go out of its way to create some.

We have never addressed whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment. The only circuit that has addressed that question—the Fourth Circuit—concluded in an unpublished decision that it does. See Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636–37 (4th Cir. 2004).

Not addressing it now means having to write ridiculous paragraphs like this in order to prevent officers from being sued for stealing stuff during searches.

We recognize that the allegation of any theft by police officers—most certainly the theft of over $225,000—is deeply disturbing. Whether that conduct violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, however, would not “be ‘clear to a reasonable officer.’”

I'm pretty sure the officers knew it was wrong to steal. It's a thing pretty much everyone knows. That they wouldn't have been "on notice" that it violated the Constitution seems almost beside the point. But since the officers raised a qualified immunity defense, we're left with this absurd outcome.

Appellants have failed to show that it was clearly established that the City Officers’ alleged conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the City Officers are protected by qualified immunity against Appellants’ Fourth Amendment claim.

The court recognizes what it's doing. But it claims to be bound by [checks notes] lack of precedent, which makes this footnote's recognition of the obvious especially meaningless.

Importantly, we observe that the technical legal question of whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment is a different question from whether theft is morally wrong. We recognize that theft is morally wrong, and acknowledge that virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong. That principle does not, however, answer the legal question presented in this case.

Unfortunately, this closing statement is still true.

Not all conduct that is improper or morally wrong, however, violates the Constitution.

But when the conduct involves government employees illegally depriving people of their belongings, it would seem to violate the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The search may be protected by a valid warrant, but making off with property that isn't targeted (or even present on the inventory sheet) sure sounds like an unreasonable seizure.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 9th circuit, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, police, qualified immunity

Former Law Enforcement Officer Displays His Ignorance Of The Law In Civil Forfeiture Article

from the ignorance-of-the-law-gets-you-a-sweet-position-on-the-nightly-newscast dept

If you're going to be touted as an "expert," the very goddamn least you can do is not make people stupider. May I present to you "Trooper Steve," the resident "traffic safety expert" for ClickOrlando.com.

He comes highly-touted. None other than the Orlando Sentinel called him… well, a "traffic safety expert." Here's the headline:

Former FHP Trooper Steve Montiero brings wealth of knowledge as News 6 traffic safety expert

Underneath the video announcing this triumphant hiring is a sentence that makes my head ache terribly:

Montiero gained fame with the Florida Highway Patrol as a Public Information Officer…

It's really weird that anyone would "gain fame" as a law enforcement officer. Sure, his position was more public-facing than most, but let's not start building a statue in his honor yet.

Here's a bit from his bio at ClickOrlando. [Please hold your vomiting until the end of the quote.]

A Central Florida native and decorated combat veteran, Montiero comes to the station following an eight-year assignment with the Florida Highway Patrol. While there, his responsibilities included patrolling Osceola, Orange, Brevard, Lake, Seminole and Volusia counties, along with the Orlando area of the Florida Turnpike. He was later assigned to the Florida Highway Patrol Motorcycle Unit, where he began doing public speaking engagements and found his passion for community involvement.

From that experience, he became the face of FHP in Orlando. Lt. Kim Montes took Steven under her wing and made him assistant Public Affairs Officer.

Over the last several years, he has become known across the Sunshine State as “Trooper Steve.” He’s spent his time doing everything from corporate events to interviews on WKMG, to just hanging out with kids in hopes of spreading the word about safe-decision making in hopes of saving just one life.

Why am I being so harsh on Trooper Steve? Well, it's a few things. First and foremost, his leap from law enforcement officer to "traffic safety expert" assumes he actually knows how to keep traffic safe. The thing about cops is they are under no obligation to keep the public safe. As the occupation name makes clear, they are there to perform law enforcement, not keep drivers safe. If the two happen to align occasionally, everyone wins. But LEOs have no "duty of care."

More than that, touting someone as an "expert" tends to lead viewers and readers to believe this person knows what the fuck they're talking about. But as this recent column by "Trooper Steve" painfully proves, police PR reps make for terrible "experts."

The question is fairly innocuous: are there any safety tips Trooper "Traffic Safety Expert" Steve could offer travelers roaming around the country with cash in their possession?

Martha, of Champions Gate, asked, “Is there anything I should know when carrying large amounts of cash in the car?

Everything goes off the rails immediately.

Well if you’re up to no good and get stopped by the police and have large amounts of cash on you, you’re going to have something to worry about. Civil asset forfeiture act requires you to show proof of cash when law enforcement is conducting an investigation.

Anything around $5,000 or more you should always have some type of paperwork showing where that money has come from, legally. This is to eliminate the idea that this money was earned or given during criminal activities for which you may be investigated.

First and fucking foremost, there is nothing illegal about cash. Cops presume there is because it puts money directly in the pockets of cops. Civil asset forfeiture tends to benefit the agency performing the seizure, so cops (and troopers) have every incentive to view any amount of cash as suspicious.

Trooper Steve draws the line at $5,000. It's an arbitrary line. Law enforcement officers will gladly seize amounts less than that because they're allowed to keep 85% of everything they seize.

But -- either due to stupidity or as a favor to his law enforcement buddies -- "expert" Trooper Steve shifts the burden of proof to drivers. That is not the law. The law -- following some minimal reform efforts -- lays the burden exactly where Trooper Steve says it doesn't.

Cash seizures still won’t need to be preceded by an arrest, though under the new law, forfeiture of any property won’t be made permanent unless law enforcement can prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that it is linked to a crime. That’s the same standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.

So, it is not up to drivers to prove the cash they have on them is legit. It's up to cops. Of course, this won't stop a seizure, but at least the law says the burden of proof is on law enforcement. Supposed "expert" Trooper Steve says it isn't. He is making people stupider. And perhaps conveniently so, because while you can take a cop out of the force, you can't take the force out of the cop.

Do better with your hiring, ClickOrlando. And clean up after your repurposed public servants when they fuck up. Thanks.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cash, civil asset forfeiture, florida, florida man, police, steve montiero