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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Exactly,” Battle replied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. FISHER: Well, again, that depends.

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

MR. FISHER: Right.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And here we are in 2018 -­

MR. FISHER: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What the Texas Tribune uncovered is exactly the reasons asset forfeiture is both problematic and incredibly popular with law enforcement agencies. Cop shop PR officers may hold press conferences to announce things like the $1.2 million in cash seized from a traffic stop, they're very quiet about the day-to-day work of forfeiture. The reality is the $50 million a year taken through forfeiture in the state of Texas is composed of hundreds of very small cash seizures.

• Half of the cash seizures were for less than $3,000. In Harris and Smith counties, more than two-thirds were under $5,000.

• About two of every five forfeiture cases started with a traffic stop.

• Many cases were connected to possession of small amounts of drugs. In Smith County, a woman’s 2003 Chevrolet Trailblazer was seized after police found half of a gram of suspected methamphetamine and a partially-smoked blunt in the car.

• In nearly 60% of the cases, people didn’t fight their seizures in court at all, resulting in judges turning over the property to local governments by default.

• Two of every 10 cases didn’t result in a related criminal charge against the property owner or possessor; in Webb County, more than half didn’t.

• And in about 40% of the cases, no one who had property taken from them was found guilty of a crime connected to the seizure.

Small seizures work out best for law enforcement. The cost of fighting the forfeiture usually outpaces the value of the seized property. This leads directly to the 60% default rate observed by the Texas Tribune. Bypassing criminal charges reduces the amount of time police and prosecutors have to spend processing the case, increasing the profitability of the seizure.

Even in the case of the $1.2 million seizure, no criminal charges were brought. Prosecutors claimed there was no criminal act to pursue since the driver claimed he was unaware of the cash officers found hidden in his trailer. And, under this deliberately-limited scope, there isn't an obvious criminal act the driver could have been charged with. But instead of trying to locate the source of the money assumed to be tied to illegal activity, law enforcement kept the money and presumably allowed a drug operation to continue mostly unimpeded.

The large forfeitures are easier to defend. It not tough to imagine the sudden loss of over $1 million causing at least some disruption in the drug distribution chain. But when cops are taking whatever cash they can find on anyone they pull over or arrest? It's a lot tougher to justify. But prosecutors will still try:

Angela Beavers, the lead civil forfeiture prosecutor for the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, said smaller seizures are common when police bust street dealers, who are an integral cog in drug trafficking organizations.

“Why would we allow the street level dealers to profit from their crimes? These are the dealers that ruin communities and families,” she said in an email.

But when the numbers are examined, these words ring hollow. It seems law enforcement cares more about the money being made by selling drugs, than the drugs themselves -- when the drugs would seem to be more instrumental to "ruining communities and families."

“I-35 is basically your main artery into the city from the rest of North America,” said Joe Baeza, a spokesperson for the Laredo Police Department. “We’re the beginning of the yellow brick road here.”

He said a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint inspects vehicles heading north into Texas, and local cops often keep an eye out for drug proceeds traveling south. Webb County agencies made two seizures — a 2012 Dodge Ram and a 2008 BMW 5-series — from northbound stops after finding drugs in both vehicles, compared with 16 cash seizures from southbound lanes.

Even in counties where convictions were tied to forfeitures, it's still small amounts of cash tied to small possession charges. The most abusive aspect of forfeiture may have been removed, but there's still no indication this law enforcement tool is being used to dismantle drug cartels and stem the flow of drugs into communities.

It's no wonder Texas law enforcement agencies have pushed back against forfeiture reporting requirements, as well as tying this practice to convictions. The numbers pulled directly from filings shows the practice is mainly used to enrich law enforcement agencies, one small seizure at a time. There's nothing in here that shows this is benefiting Texas residents in any way.

Dutch law enforcement raised the bar for forfeiture-related audacity early last year when they promised to start taking the literal clothes off people's back if it didn't seem like they had the (legal) funds to afford high-end designer wear. Dutch officials said a lot of things about gaudy timepieces but made it clear shirts and pants might follow if deemed sufficiently expensive.

The UK has this beat. As Walter Olson opines for the Washington Examiner, the UK plan does away with all the comparative politeness of American asset forfeiture. There will be no fishing expeditions masquerading as traffic stops. There will be no pre-dawn raids predicated on tips by informants whose trustworthiness is only exceeded by their willingness to commit crimes using taxpayer dollars.

As Olson points out, all UK law enforcement needs to do is claim "You can't afford that!" in front of a sufficiently-credulous magistrate.

It's like, "Your papers, please," but for things you own.

Authorities in Britain have begun trying out a new police power called unexplained wealth orders under a law that took effect last year. The police go to a court and say you're living way above any known legitimate income. The judge then signs an order compelling you to show that your possessions (whether a house, fancy car, or jewelry) have been obtained honestly and not with dirty money. In the meantime, the boat or artwork or other assets get frozen, and you can't sell them until you've shown you obtained them innocently.

The entire burden of proof resides on the UK resident the government has accused of living beyond their means. Don't have receipts? Well, I guess the government gets to keep your stuff.

The origin of this stupid law is the sort of thing that conjures calls for the guillotine from the rabble.

The first person named as a target of the law was Zamira Hajiyeva, whose story could make even an oligarch blush, assisted by a small fortune in purchases from Harrods cosmetics and perfume counters. Hajiyeva's husband is serving time after being convicted of extracting at least $100 million from Azerbaijan's state-controlled bank, of which he was chairman. She's fighting extradition to that country herself.

In the meantime, her possessions include a £12 million London house and a golf course on the outskirts. Details of Hajiyeva's wild Harrods spending sprees were neatly captured for authorities and readers by the store's loyalty card program. They included a £1,190,000 Cartier diamond ring and tens of thousands at a Godiva chocolate shop, adding up to $20 million over a decade. The high-end London store reserved two bespoke parking spots for her. She used at least 54 credit cards, many issued by the state-controlled bank her husband ran.

I know, right? But government officials might want to remember it wasn't just the filthy rich that ended up under the blade. It was also members of the ruling class, including the inbreeders at the top wearing crowns.

There are some caveats:

First, there has to be some suspicion the person whose property is being targeted is suspected of violating a crime. It's not a very high bar but it's something. Second, this power is being handed over to tax collectors, so it's not just suspected links to violent criminal activities being utilized.

As Olson points out, the definition of "serious crime" in the UK covers such innocuous activities as running an unlicensed gambling operation, even if your gambling site pays all winning bets and otherwise operates as least as cleanly as the licensed ones do.

All caveats aside, this is fucked up. It doesn't require the government to prove anything about a person's wealth or criminal activities. It allows the government to freeze assets and, eventually, keep them, if the person accused can't come up with proof their possessions were purchased with clean money. Considering the meandering flow of cash around the world (and the intricacies of international banking), who's going to have acceptable evidence on hand when the government starts seizing property?

If law enforcement was serious about crippling drug cartels, they wouldn't be watching the roads leading out of their jurisdictions for drivers to pull over and shake down for cash. They'd be watching roads leading into the state to seize the drugs before they can be sold. But that's not how it's done. Drug busts are rare. Cash seizures -- especially small ones -- happen all the time.

When a Nashville television news team followed police officers working I-40 as part of a highway interdiction task force not unlike South Carolina’s Rolling Thunder, it found officers did not work the east- and westbound lanes equally. Rather, they seemed to prefer the westbound side even though they were more likely to find drugs on the eastbound side, as smugglers transported them to Nashville and other cities to the east. A possible explanation for this observation is that officers knew they were more likely to find drug money on the westbound side, as smugglers transported it back to Mexico or the West Coast. Records confirmed officers made 10 times as many stops on the westbound side as they did on the eastbound.

You'll notice law enforcement never brings stats to the discussion. All officials bring are talking points. Most states don't require any level of reporting on seizures and the law enforcement spending that flows from these. The opacity has allowed a law enforcement tool to become an unaudited revenue stream, providing agencies with all the incentive they need to turn traffic stops into lucrative fishing expeditions.

Fortunately, those opposed to the abusive practice will have even more facts to work with, thanks to a new study [PDF] by Dr. Brian D. Kelly of the Institute for Justice. Millions of dollars flow into law enforcement agencies every year from forfeiture, but this has yet to provide the public with any return on the forced investment.

More equitable sharing funds do not translate into more crimes solved. This suggests that despite claims forfeiture turns criminals’ cash into more resources for law enforcement, the additional revenue is not improving overall police effectiveness in crime fighting.

More equitable sharing funds also do not mean less drug use, even though proponents argue forfeiture helps rid the streets of drugs by financially crippling drug dealers and cartels.

When local economies suffer, equitable sharing activity increases, suggesting police make greater use of forfeiture when local budgets are tight. A 1 percentage point increase in local unemployment—a standard proxy for fiscal stress—is associated with a statistically significant 9 percentage point increase in equitable sharing seizures.

That's two popular arguments directly disproven. The first one -- that forfeiture allows agencies to purchase the tech and tools they need to fight crime successfully -- is disproven by the lack of results. Sure, agencies are loading up on equipment and spy gear, but clearance rates on criminal investigations aren't tracking with the increased cash flow. Using law enforcement data, the IJ can't find any link between asset forfeiture and law enforcement efficiency.

Results suggest forfeiture does not help police solve more crime. The results of these analyses were statistically insignificant at conventional levels, suggesting additional forfeiture revenue does not translate into more crimes solved. But even if the results were significant, the relationship between forfeiture and crime clearance would be vanishingly small. For example, the LEMAS [Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics] data for municipal police suggest a $1,000 increase in equitable sharing funds per officer would mean solving just 2.4 more crimes per 1,000 reported offenses. So if an agency’s clearance rate were, say, 270 per 1,000 offenses, receiving $1,000 more in equitable sharing funds per officer would mean increasing the clearance rate to just 272.4. A $1,000 increase in funds per officer would be substantial—total equitable sharing averages less than half of this—yet such a windfall would make only a minor difference. Moreover, such tiny improvements in clearance rates would diminish as forfeiture revenue increases; for example, the first $500 per officer in a given year would have a greater impact than the second $500 per officer. These results suggest claims about forfeiture’s crime-fighting importance are, at best, overstated.

The second talking point -- that forfeiture cripples drug dealers and cartels -- also has no factual basis. Again, the numbers contradict the claims. Using the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) carried out by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the IJ found no correlation between asset forfeiture and reductions in drug use, suggesting drugs are still just as easy to obtain.

From 2002 through 2014, the survey underwent no major relevant changes, making it possible to directly compare results over time. This feature allowed me to explore whether increases in equitable sharing proceeds received by agencies within a particular NSDUH region were associated with reductions in drug use in those same regions. I controlled for police agency staffing, which could affect police effectiveness, as well as for demographic and economic factors sometimes associated with drug use: the proportion of the population age 15–24, the minority proportion of the population and the unemployment rate. The four NSDUH drug use measures I used were (1) use of any illicit drug in the previous year, (2) marijuana use in the previous year, (3) nonmedical use of prescription pain relievers in the previous year and (4) cocaine use in the previous year.

For none of these illicit drug use measures did I find increases in equitable sharing proceeds led to subsequent reductions in use. In short, to the extent forfeiture advocates hope increasing enforcement through forfeiture will reduce drug use, this does not appear to be happening.

What the report did find is something unexpected: the more financially-stressed an area is, the more likely it is law enforcement will make it worse. Forfeitures increase as unemployment increases, suggesting financially-strapped agencies are stepping up forfeiture efforts to make up for budget shortfalls.

In every case, I found that higher unemployment predicted more equitable sharing activity. For equitable sharing overall as well as for both joint operations and adoptions, the link between unemployment and both value of assets forfeited and number of assets seized was statistically significant. With respect to equitable sharing overall, a 1 percentage point increase in unemployment was associated with an 8.5 percentage point increase in the value of forfeited assets and a 9.5 percentage point increase in the number of assets seized…

The study confirms what's always been suspected: asset forfeiture directly enriches law enforcement agencies but provides zero benefit to the communities the agencies serve. That's the very definition of abuse. Cops are using citizens as ATMs while drug cartels thrive. The data clearly shows the only negative impact of serious asset forfeiture reforms will be an increase in complaints from law enforcement officials.

Law enforcement will be severely handicapped if state lawmakers succumb to the misconception that no forfeiture should take place without a conviction on proceeds under $50,000.

[...]

Drugs may not be present, but everything else confirms and indicates drug trafficking, i.e., ledger books, scales, pre-recorded narcotics buy funds and packaging materials. In this particular scenario, as well as a multitude of others, the police and prosecutors could not establish a case to seize anything if Michigan adopts the $50,000 threshold.

All this evidence and nothing to do with it, I guess. Like many in the law enforcement field, Stevenson clings to the myth that robbing random people at gunpoint somehow cripples drug cartels. This belief is backed by far less evidence than the long list of stuff Stevenson claims can't be cobbled into a successful prosecution. We're more than 40 years deep into a War on Drugs and the only thing that's changed for the positive is the public's attitude towards civil asset forfeiture.

Michigan's legislature is considering adding a conviction requirement for forfeitures under $50,000. Opponents of property rights and due process keep crawling out of the woodwork, offering up increasingly nonsensical defenses of forfeiture. But nothing is stupider than this prosecutor's objection:

”Since a conviction is now required, it will make it extremely difficult to prosecute high level drug dealers,” Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said via email.

REQUIRING PROSECUTORS TO PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS.

This kind of reasoning suggests the real problem with closing the deal, prosecution-wise, might be the prosecutor's arguments.

It doesn't get worse from there. But it certainly doesn't get any better. Allowing Worthy to expand on this theory does not bring enlightenment or clarification. It just makes the theory bigger and dumber.

“Often in these cases, witnesses are intimidated to the point that they do not show up for trial, sometimes losing their lives because of the retaliation,” Worthy said. “It is our fear that this will get worse now that drug dealers know that if there are no witnesses, there will be no conviction and they can get their property back.”

How in fuck do you draw the line from "taking cash from some dude cops pulled over" to "witness intimidation?" This is the brilliant legal mind handling prosecutions for Michigan's largest city. All this says is that forfeiture was never about keeping drugs and drug dealers off the street. It was always about the cash. We know this, but cops and prosecutors will never say it out loud. Worthy's attempt to portray almost-suspicionless cash seizures as leverage in prosecutions the government NEVER PLANS TO PURSUE is inadvertently transparent.

The only argument that could be worse than Worthy's defense is the truth: cops and prosecutors prefer taking property because it's easier and it enriches them personally. But we should expect nothing less (nothing more?) from a prosecutor who once asserted there's a link between real-life and video game violence, stating "no one" could "convince" her otherwise, no matter what evidence they presented. Seems like evidence and assertions are never in the same place when Worthy's in charge. I can see why she's so opposed to doing a job she's clearly not qualified to perform.

The complaint filed against the money made a lot of claims about the government's suspicions this was money destined for drug purchases. Supposedly evidence was recovered from seized phones suggested the two men were involved in drug trafficking, utilizing a third person's money. Despite all of this evidence, prosecutors never went after the men. They only went after the money.

Records searches of both state and federal courts did not identify any criminal charges against Li, Peng or Huang.

Even the speeding that predicated the stop (in which a drug dog "alerted" on the rental vehicle that contained no drugs) went unprosecuted.

This is where the stupid begins: alleged drug dealers allowed to continue their drug dealing by state and federal agencies more interested in the men's cash.

But it gets stupider. This was offered up in the complaint against the seized money as evidence of the men's criminal activities.

Authorities noted in the complaint he lived “9 houses” away from the site of a residence where drug transactions were occurring and a contact in his phone was recently the subject of a civil forfeiture action.

That's some mighty fine evidence. If you happen to live in the same neighborhood as a known criminal, I guess you're a criminal, too. That's just how society works, ladies and gentlemen. Move to a better neighborhood if you don't want to be lumped in with your worst neighbors.

The other part is stupid, too. According to this line of thought, if law enforcement has stolen cash and property from someone in your Contacts list, you must be a criminal. Only criminals would associate with people whose stuff has been taken by the government but have never been convicted of criminal activity.

Also apparently suspicious: traveling and not attempting to avoid mandated IRS reporting.

Peng had a number of bank transactions the complaint states were “highly unusual” including multiple deposits and wire transactions for about $100,000 each. Financial records also showed three trips between Chicago and California and one from Chicago to New York in a three-month period between November 2016 and January 2017.

You just can't win. Keep deposits too low (under $10,000) and the federal government thinks you're engaged in structuring. Keep them well above the mandatory reporting mark and you're probably a drug dealer.

It appears the agencies involved in this seizure didn't think they had enough real evidence to follow through on this forfeiture. More than two years after the $626,000 was seized, the government is returning it to its rightful owners. That's where the vindictiveness comes in. The government hasn't won a criminal or civil case against any of the people involved, but it's still going to keep a third of the cash just because.

U.S. District Attorney for Western Missouri Tim Garrison, in a settlement agreement dated April 25, wrote the government will return almost $418,000 to claimant Lu Li, of Chicago, and will keep almost $209,000.

Even when the government loses, it still wins. One-third of $626,000 remains in the hands of a government that couldn't prove anything it alleged, even in a civil case where the standard of proof is considerably lower.

In the end, we have three people short $200,000 and a government that can't competently prosecute people or their money, even when the latter can't defend itself in civil forfeiture litigation. [waves American flag with one blue stripe frantically while humming 'The Ballad of the Green Berets" for some reason]

Michigan definitely needs to overhaul its forfeiture laws. Law enforcement claims it's dismantling drug cartels, but a look at the state's forfeiture stats shows cops are just piling up low ball seizures to create a suitably impressive total. Cash seizures are routinely below $1,000. Vehicle seizures are also popular with Michigan cops, but the average value of vehicles taken from alleged drug dealers also falls below the $1,000 mark.

It's these tiny seizures -- the ones not worth fighting in court -- that the state legislature is trying to curb. It's hoping to implement a conviction requirement for any forfeiture under $50,000. Chief Stevenson says this would let the drug dealers win. But beyond using some florid language to flesh out a tiny parade of horribles, Stevenson cannot actually say why this conviction requirement would harm drug enforcement efforts. He tries. Lord, how he tries. But there's nothing coherent in his defense of cops taking property from citizens just because.

First, Stevenson argues that cops should be able to take money they feel deeply in their hearts is derived from drug dealing even if it can't find any evidence linking the person carrying it to a crime.

Law enforcement will be severely handicapped if state lawmakers succumb to the misconception that no forfeiture should take place without a conviction on proceeds under $50,000. It is a dramatic misunderstanding that a conviction can be obtained in all drug cases. Drugs and proceeds are not always discovered together which makes obtaining criminal convictions in certain instances impossible. Linking civil asset forfeiture to a criminal conviction allows drug dealers to continue profiting from dealing death in our communities.

In the eyes of LEOs like Stevenson, cash being carried by people stopped by officers can only be the product of illegal activity. It's simply inconceivable anyone would carry cash in this day and age, apparently. This isn't conjecture on my part. Stevenson actually states that people carrying cash are legally obligated to explain its origin to cops.

That part comes in his second argument for forfeiture -- one that says even if cops have all the evidence they need to push for a conviction, they still should just be able to take the cash instead.

The $50,000 threshold found in this legislation simply means that drug dealers will transport money in sums of less than $50,000. The scenarios I fear involve finding suspects in a house or a car in possession of $49,000 in cash with no valid explanation.

There are two mind-blowing statements in this paragraph and they're both worth singling out.

Stevenson says people should have to explain their cash to cops. That's a really weird statement to make, considering previous forfeiture reform efforts raised the burden of proof for the state, not for the public. The public doesn't owe law enforcement a "valid explanation" for cash (and other property) it possesses. This is completely the wrong way around and it explains law enforcement's inherent resistance to conviction requirements. Cops want the cash, but they don't want to put in the work needed to link seizures to illegal activity. They want the burden of proof to rest most heavily on those whose property has been taken.

Then Stevenson says cops shouldn't have to pursue convictions to take cash even when they have enough evidence to support a conviction. These sentences resist parsing:

Drugs may not be present, but everything else confirms and indicates drug trafficking, i.e., ledger books, scales, pre-recorded narcotics buy funds and packaging materials. In this particular scenario, as well as a multitude of others, the police and prosecutors could not establish a case to seize anything if Michigan adopts the $50,000 threshold.

The proposed law would just determine which case needs to be established first. If cops have enough to establish a case for prosecution, it can move forward with trying to seize the cash. The only possible way this argument makes sense is if Michigan law enforcement is so inept it can't cobble together a prosecution using a shitload of evidence. If that's the case, Michigan law enforcement definitely needs to have convictionless seizures because that's the only way it's ever going to take possession of all this "unexplained" cash.

I'm sure Stevenson felt pretty self-righteous (and regular righteous, to be fair) handing this op-ed in. But the lack of logic displayed by his spirited, but incoherent, defense of the state's long-running "free money for cops" programs made more of case for reform than if he'd simply said nothing at all.