Tag: civil asset forfeiture

Forfeiture fight delivers victory to savings account owner

Forfeiture schemes abound across America. Government agents have been known to see money in a traveler’s luggage, take it and keep it.

But it could be that the tide is turning, with the latest ruling from the Texas First Court of Appeals that reversed a civil-forfeiture judgment in Harris County.

The decision ordered the state to return to Ameal and Jordan Davis a total of $41,680.

The ruling confirmed, “Harris County’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove the cash was intended to be used to purchase a controlled substance—confirming that private property, including cash, cannot be taken on mere suspicion.”

“Cash is not a crime,” said Arif Panju, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice’s Texas office. “Today the First Court of Appeals entered judgment for Ameal and Jordan and ordered their life savings returned. That’s a decisive win for due process and a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture based on hunches.”

The fight dates to 2019 when the Davises decided to pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business. They saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low—eventually accumulating more than $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner, the IJ said.

When Ameal was ready to buy his truck, driving from Natchez, Mississippi, toward Houston, he was stopped by police officers in Harris County. They took his cash and released him.

“Although the government’s forfeiture case involved no drugs or drug dealers whatsoever, and Ameal was never charged with any crime, the county nevertheless pursued civil forfeiture. After a six-day trial, a jury found the money was intended to be used to possess a controlled substance at some point in the future; the trial court entered judgment for forfeiture,” the IJ said.

However, the appeals ruling said the state’s evidence failed.

There was no evidence of any “substantial connection” between the money and the alleged and undefined “drug offense.”

“This ruling makes clear that the government can’t take people’s property without evidence of a crime,” said James Knight, attorney at the Institute for Justice. “Ameal and Jordan fought back, and today’s decision restores what was theirs and strengthens protections for everyone who carries cash.”

Keep reading

The FBI Took Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost.

Linda Martin found out the hard way that the most powerful law enforcement agency in the U.S.—the FBI—can seize your assets without articulating why. Worse: Law enforcement took her savings in a raid that was itself unconstitutional. Worse still: A lawsuit she filed met its demise last week, allowing the federal government to continue the dubious practice of taking people’s valuables without having to explain the reason it is justified in doing so.

The agency never did furnish a specific reason in Martin’s case—because she wasn’t charged with a crime. Her saga began in 2021, when the FBI sought to take more than $100 million in assets from U.S. Private Vaults, a business that offered safe-deposit boxes. That company was suspected of, and ultimately charged with, criminal wrongdoing. But the warrant expressly forbade agents from engaging in a “criminal search or seizure” of customers’ boxes, like Martin’s.

They did so anyway, rummaging through approximately 800 of them and seizing assets that belonged to a slew of innocent people. That included Travis May, who stored gold and $63,000 in cash; Jeni Verdon-Pearsons and Michael Storc, who kept $2,000 in cash, as well as approximately $20,000 worth of silver; Paul and Jennifer Snitko, whose box contained personal items, like marriage, birth, and baptismal certificates; and Don Mellein, who had invested in gold coins, many of which the FBI said it lost (to the tune of over $100,000).

A judge later ruled violated the Fourth Amendment. But it was too late for Martin, who received notice that the FBI had taken $40,200, her life savings, from her box. To justify that, the notice listed hundreds of federal crimes that would lead to a seizure. As Institute for Justice (I.J.) Director of Media Relations Andrew Wimer points out, the list included such crimes as copyright infringement and barring business deals with North Korea. But the bureau notably did not specify how Martin was supposedly involved in any of those offenses, because it is not required to do so.

So she sued. “When the FBI attempts to forfeit someone’s property, due process requires that it say why, citing specific facts and laws,” reads her appellant brief. “By sending notices that initiate and, often, consummate property’s forfeiture—all without ever saying what exactly the FBI thinks justifies the forfeiture, the FBI deprives owners of crucial information they need to protect their rights.” After she filed the lawsuit, and about two years post-seizure, the agency returned Martin’s cash. But she continued in court in hopes that the judiciary would agree that the FBI was violating people’s due process rights by seizing assets with effectively no explanation.

That died last week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Keep reading

The Danger of Traveling with Gold

Two men were pulled over while driving on I-20 in Texas, carrying $250,000 worth of gold bars. US law permits and encourages law enforcement to confiscate assets. Civil asset forfeiture enables the government to simply seize assets and declare that the owner is guilty of money laundering before any due process occurs.

“We have to be able to prove what that criminal activity was, in other words how they got the money that they laundered. A lot of times that’s hard when your case starts with a traffic stop,” DA Tonda Curry said. Officers and drug sniffing dogs searched the men and their vehicle but found nothing aside from the gold. Curry initially attempted to pin the men with money laundering charges but could not make a case. The DA then determined that the men were involved in some criminal organization “that defrauds the elderly with investment-type scams.”

Since they were instantly charged with a crime, the law permitted the officers to confiscate the gold. “So he can’t give it back to them and let them go on down the road, it’s not theirs,” the DA explained, saying that charging the men with a civil case would be easier to prove than an actual criminal investigation.

Keep reading

Justice Department Orders DEA to Halt Airport Searches Because of ‘Significant Issues’ With Cash Seizures

The Justice Department has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to suspend most searches of passengers at airports and other mass transit hubs after an independent investigation found DEA task forces weren’t documenting searches and weren’t properly trained, creating a significant risk of constitutional violations and lawsuits. 

The deputy attorney general directed the DEA on November 12 to halt what are known as “consensual encounter” searches at airports—unless they’re part of an existing investigation into a criminal network—after seeing the draft of a Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) memorandum that outlined a decade’s worth of “significant concerns” about how the DEA uses paid airline informants and loose criteria to flag passengers to search for drugs and cash.

OIG Investigators found that the DEA paid one airline employee tens of thousands of dollars over the past several years in proceeds from cash seized as a result of their tips. However, the vast majority of those airport seizures aren’t accompanied by criminal prosecutions. This has led to years of complaints from civil liberties groups that the DEA is abusing civil asset forfeiture—a practice that allows police to seize cash and other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity such as drug trafficking, even if the owner is never arrested or charged with a crime. 

The memo, released publicly today by the OIG, found that failures to properly train agents and document searches “​​creates substantial risks that DEA Special Agents (SA) and Task Force Officers (TFO) will conduct these activities improperly; impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of, innocent travelers; imperil the Department’s asset forfeiture and seizure activities; and waste law enforcement resources on ineffective interdiction actions.”

The OIG memo and directive is a victory for advocacy groups that oppose civil asset forfeiture, such as the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is currently litigating a class action lawsuit challenging the DEA’s airport forfeiture practices.

Keep reading

Legal Plunder: Indiana Police Prey On Packages Transiting Huge FedEx Hub

From a federal government operating far beyond the bounds of the Constitution to law enforcement agencies routinely entering private property without warrants, tyranny takes many forms in the United States. However, few are as shocking to the sensibilities as civil asset forfeiture, the controversial practice that empowers police to seize money, cars, trucks, houses or anything else they merely accuse of having a link to criminal activity — regardless of whether the property owner is charged with a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture is an affront to anyone who’s sincerely committed to the American justice system’s cornerstone presumption of innocence. With law enforcement typically keeping some or all of the assets that are seized, the practice has rightly been called “policing for profit.”

I’ve previously examined the raw tyranny of civil asset forfeiture, spotlighting the story of a Mississippi man who took $42,300 in cash to Houston with the intent of buying a second semi truck for his fledgling trucking business, only to have it seized — or, in legal jargon, “forfeited” — by Harris County police, who pulled him over for allegedly following the vehicle in front of him too closely.

Now I’m compelled to share a new example of this legalized theft — the most brazenly unjust and opportunistic one I’ve encountered yet: In an ongoing, multi-million-dollar racket in Indianapolis, police are routinely seizing cash they find in FedEx packages that happen to be routed through that company’s second-largest hub.

Like bears wading into a river teeming with salmon, state and local Indiana police officers routinely stride up to the conveyer belts at FedEx’s sprawling Indianapolis facility, where tens of thousands of packages flow by every hour, pouncing when they see a package with traits that meet their absurdly broad definition of “suspicious.”

Keep reading

Lawsuit Claims Indiana Unconstitutionally Seizes Millions in Cash From FedEx Packages Every Year

A new class action lawsuit accuses Indiana law enforcement of seizing millions of dollars a year in cash from FedEx packages without ever informing owners of what crime they’re suspected of violating.

Henry and Minh Cheng, who run a small California jewelry wholesaler business, allege in a class action countersuit filed in Indiana state court that police seized over $42,000 in cash from a FedEx package en route to them from a client in Virginia. County prosecutors then filed a lawsuit to forfeit their money through civil asset forfeiture, claiming the Chengs’ money was connected to a violation of a criminal statute, but the complaint never stated which statute.

The Chengs’ suit, though, says they’re not the only victims. The lawsuit says Indiana law enforcement officials “exploit Indianapolis’s location at the Crossroads of America to forfeit millions of dollars in currency being shipped from one side of the nation to the other.”

The Chengs’ countersuit against the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and the State of Indiana was filed on their behalf by the Institute for Justice (I.J.), a libertarian public interest law firm that has challenged civil asset forfeiture laws in several states.

According to I.J., the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office has sued to forfeit $2.5 million in currency from at least 130 FedEx parcels in transit from one non-Indiana state to another over the past two years.

“This scheme is one of the most predatory we have seen, and it’s past time to put a stop to it,” I.J. senior attorney Sam Gedge said in a press release. “It’s illegal and unconstitutional for Indiana to forfeit in-transit money whose only connection to Indiana is the happenstance of FedEx’s shipping practices.”

Keep reading

An Alabama Couple’s Lives Were Upended by an Unconstitutional Police Raid. A Jury Awarded Them $1 Million.

Six years ago, Greg and Teresa Almond were left destitute and living in a utility shed after sheriff’s deputies in Randolph County, Alabama, illegally raided their house and seized their savings over a misdemeanor drug crime.

Now the Almonds will be made partly whole, at least financially. Last month, a jury in their federal civil rights lawsuit awarded the couple $1 million in punitive and compensatory damages after trial testimony showed the deputies never got a warrant to search the Almonds’ property.

The Randolph County Sheriff’s Department’s 2018 raid on the Almonds’ house, first reported by the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, exemplified the worst aspects of the war on drugs and civil asset forfeiture—a practice that allows police to seize property when it’s suspected of being connected to criminal activity. 

On January 31, 2018, a Randolph County sheriff’s deputy showed up at Greg and Teresa Almond’s house in Woodland, Alabama, to serve Greg court papers in a civil matter. The deputy reported that he smelled marijuana.

A county drug task force returned two hours later, busted down the Almonds’ front door, threw a flash-bang grenade at Greg Almond’s feet, detained the couple at gunpoint, and ransacked their house. The search only turned up $50 or less of marijuana, which the Almonds’ adult son tried in vain to claim as his, and a single sleeping pill outside of a prescription bottle with Greg’s name on it.

Using the paltry amount of narcotics as justification, deputies seized roughly $8,000 in cash, along with dozens of firearms and other valuables, under Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws. The deputies took the money right out of his wallet, Greg Almond told Reason in 2019.

More than a year after the initial raid, the Almonds were indicted on two misdemeanor charges: unlawful possession of marijuana for personal use and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, thus violating “the peace and dignity of Alabama.” However, prosecutors dropped the charges, and a judge ordered their property to be returned.

The Almonds filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in 2019 alleging that the Randolph County Sheriff’s Department used excessive force; stole, lost, or failed to inventory their missing property; and violated their constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their right to due process.

That was in addition to the other injuries they suffered. As a result of the raid and arrest, the Almonds’ missed a crucial deadline to refinance loans on their farm and lost their house. Their reputation was tarnished, and their ability to earn a living was practically destroyed.

What’s more, depositions and trial testimony showed that the deputies never obtained an official search warrant from a judge for the raid.

Keep reading

Government tyranny comes to Main Street, with the feds more powerful than ever

Americans today have the “freedom” to be fleeced, censored, wiretapped, injected, disarmed, detained, groped and maybe shot by government agents.

Politicians are hell-bent on protecting citizens against everything except Uncle Sam.

“We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized,” warned Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

There are now more than 5,200 separate federal criminal offenses and tens of thousands of state and local crimes.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, police can lock up anyone accused of “even a very minor criminal offense,” such as an unbuckled seatbelt.

The Founding Fathers saw property rights as “the guardian of every other right.”

But today’s politicians never lack a pretext for plundering private citizens.

Federal law-enforcement agencies arbitrarily confiscate more property from Americans each year (without criminal convictions) than all the burglars steal nationwide.

The IRS pilfered more cash from private bank accounts because of alleged paperwork errors than the total bank robbers looted nationwide.

Government decrees are blighting more lives than ever before.

Keep reading

Goodbye to Detroit’s Asset Forfeiture Racket

A federal appeals court has dealt a welcome victory to vehicle owners and a scathing rebuke to Detroit’s asset forfeiture racket.

A panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit unanimously ruled in late August that Detroit’s practice of seizing people’s cars for months at a time before giving them a chance to contest the seizure violates vehicle owners’ 14th Amendment right to due process. The panel found that Michigan’s Wayne County, which includes Detroit, “violated that Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods—with no timely process to contest the seizure.”

The 6th Circuit ruled that Wayne County must provide car owners a post-seizure court hearing within two weeks.

The ruling is the latest development in a series of lawsuits arguing that Wayne County uses civil asset forfeiture to seize cars and then forces owners to pay a $900 settlement fee, plus towing and storage fees, to get them back—or wait months, even years, for a court hearing.

Keep reading

Civil Forfeiture Defendants Have the Right to a Jury Trial, Says the Indiana Supreme Court

Civil forfeiture defendants in Indiana have the right to a jury trial, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week, bolstering basic due process protections for those who have assets seized by law enforcement. 

Before the court was the case of Alucious Kizer, from whom police seized $2,435 in cash after a traffic stop where they found drugs in his vehicle. Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to take people’s assets if the government suspects them of criminal activity. Kizer moved to challenge his forfeiture at trial, which the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected, ruling that such defendants “are not entitled to trial by jury.” 

“The State insists that Kizer has no right to a jury trial because civil forfeitures pursuant to Indiana’s drug forfeiture laws are a special statutory procedure intended exclusively for trial by the court,” Justice Christopher M. Goff of the Indiana Supreme Court summarized in an opinion published October 31. “Kizer disagrees, arguing that the State’s theory would effectively deprive Hoosiers of a jury trial when filing suit under any modern statutory scheme.”

The state’s highest court ruled in favor of Kizer. “The historical record—consisting of statutes and judicial decisions reflecting contemporary practice—strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common-law tradition of trial by jury in actions for the forfeiture of property,” wrote Goff. The seizure of assets suspected to be used in the commission of a crime, he added, is “an essentially legal action that triggers the right” to a jury trial. 

That prosecutors in Indiana have successfully denied civil forfeiture defendants this due process, and were close to making it official in the courts, is a reflection of how abusive the practice can be. It’s also unsurprising and shows how governments across the U.S. can deter defendants from challenging such seizures, even when those people haven’t been charged with a crime.

Keep reading