Cash seized from people never charged with a crime

[Mr. Ambien]

Change I can believe in:

Federal prosecutors are battling in court to keep $167,000 in cash seized in a 2013 traffic stop, despite the motorist never being charged in the incident and the Obama administration clamped down this spring on such asset seizures and forfeitures.

The case -- which highlights the ongoing concerns about the government unjustly seizing money and property -- began when a Nevada state trooper pulled over the motorist on a cross-country trip to California.

The trooper stopped Hawaii resident Straughn Gormans motor-home in January 2013 for allegedly going too slow along Interstate 80.

According to court documents, Gorman was allowed to proceed without a citation despite the trooper suspecting he was hiding cash.

The trooper said he couldnt inspect the vehicle because he would have needed a canine unit and for the dog to detect drugs, which would have created enough probable cause to get a search warrant.

However, no canine unit was available so the trooper released Gorman but not before requesting the county sheriffs office stop him again -- about 50 minutes later and this time with a drug-sniffing dog.

No drugs were found during the second stop, in which Gorman was pulled over for two alleged traffic violation. But his vehicle, computer, cellphone and the cash, stashed throughout the vehicle, were seized.

In June, a federal judge in Nevada ordered Gormans cash be returned.

In his ruling, District Judge Larry Hicks cited Gormans prolonged detention for the alleged traffic violations and criticized federal authorities for failing to disclose that the first officer requested the second stop.

The second stop was not based on independent, reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the prolonged investigation, wrote Hicks, a Bush administration appointee. The two stops were for minor traffic violations, and they both were extended beyond the legitimate purposes for such traffic stops.

Hicks also said in his ruling the second stop never would have happened if the first officer had not relayed information about the first stop, which included a vehicle description, suspicion about concealed cash and that a canine sniff would likely be needed to get probable cause for a search.

The federal government earlier this month appealed Hicks' ruling in the 9th Circuit Court, in San Francisco, considered among the most liberal in the county.

Federal attorneys did not submit a reason for the appeal in their one-paragraph request, according to The Daily Signal, which first reported the request.

The court is expected to also decide whether Gorman should be reimbursed $153,000 in legal fees, which federal lawyers dont want to pay.

The first court proceeding is scheduled for November 19.

The Justice Department earlier this year issued a series of directives to reform and restrict its policies on asset seizures and forfeitures, amid the complaints about government abuse and overreach.

We are keenly aware of concerns raised about certain seizures and forfeiture practices, the agency told the Senate Judiciary Committee in April. The department takes seriously any and all allegations of perceived or actual abuse.

The first of the changes were announced in January by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, starting with forfeitures.

Holder said federal agencies could no longer take assets seized by state and local law enforcement agencies, except for those directly related to public safety concerns including firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography.

Among the valuables the agencies can no longer take are cash and vehicles.

In March, Holder announced changes to banking laws that allow money to be seized from people who make deposits below specific amounts to intentionally keep the transaction from being reported to federal authorities -- a scheme known as structuring.

Holder said authorities would now focus on the most serious offenses and essentially that money could be seized only after the defendant is charge with a crime or found to have been engaged in a crime beyond structuring, according to document the Justice Department gave FoxNews.com this week.

The minimum-deposit laws were enacted to detect and nab drug dealers, terrorists and other money-launders and criminals trying to conceal their enterprise and cash. And they were enacted to create a money stream to provide financial compensation to crime victims.

The IRS seized more than $242 million in roughly 2,500 alleged structuring violations, from 2005 to 2012. However, no other criminal activity was alleged in roughly 33 percent of the cases, according to the Institute of Justice, which worked on a more recent case in North Carolina.

Last year, the IRS took $107,000 from Carolina small-business owner Lyndon McLellan after he made a series of deposits under $10,000.

McLellan owns a convenience store-restaurant-gas station. And many of his transactions are in cash.

The federal government offered to return half of McLellans cash, a standard move by federal officials who know many people cannot afford a lengthy court battle and would rather settle.

McLellan got back all of the money but wasnt reimbursed roughly $22,000 in legal and accounting fees, Institute attorney Robert Everett Johnson said Tuesday.

Were pleased that Lyndons money has been returned, Johnson said. That the federal government returned the money validates he didnt do anything wrong.

However, Johnson expresses dismay that his client is still battling to recoup his costs and interest on the seized money, to which he appear entitled under the 2000 Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

We thing the federal government should make him whole, he said. It simply cannot pretend that nothing happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/29/feds-fighting-to-keep-cash-seized-from-person-never-charged-with-crime/?intcmp=hpbt3

This one's been on the radar for a while now. I think a similar topic came up within the last year or two on CDC. Of course, Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch, thinks this method is an amazing tool... to steal money from innocent people that is.

ACLU has ongoing coverage of it, a practice also done in states like PA:

African-Americans Disproportionately Affected by Practice

PHILADELPHIA - The ACLU of Pennsylvania today released a new report that documents the impact of Pennsylvanias unfair civil asset forfeiture laws and the aggressive enforcement of these laws by the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal mechanism that allows law enforcement to take and keep property it claims is connected to illegal activity without charging the property owner with a crime.

The report, entitled Guilty Property: How Law Enforcement Takes $1 Million in Cash from Innocent Philadelphians Every Year and Gets Away with It, examines data obtained through Right to Know requests and from court files from 2011 to 2013. The report also includes interviews with several individuals with firsthand experiences with the forfeiture system.

Supporters of the current civil asset forfeiture process say its a necessary tool for stopping drug kingpins. But forfeiture has been used against ordinary citizens, many of whom are poor and without the resources to fight back against the strong arm of the government, said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Unlike criminal defendants, people facing the loss of their property through civil forfeiture have no right to an attorney.

Among the reports findings:

· Almost one-third of cash forfeiture cases involve money owned by people who have not been found guilty of a crime about 1,500 Philadelphians each year.

· Sixty-three percent of Philadelphia cash forfeitures each year involve money taken from African-Americans, who make up only 43 percent of Philadelphias population. African-American people account for 71 percent of innocent owners who have cash forfeited in Philadelphia each year.

· Roughly 6,000 forfeiture cases are led annually in Philadelphia.

· Annually, the District Attorneys Office in Philadelphia takes and keeps 100 homes, 150 vehicles, and roughly $4 million in cash, for a total of around $5 million in income.

· Each year, the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office receives forfeiture income equivalent to about 7 percent of its budget.

· Requests by the Philadelphia DAs office to forfeit cash (called forfeiture petitions) were granted in an estimated 96% of cases, settled in 3%, and rejected in only 1% of cases.

· The vast majority of property seized in Philadelphia was small amounts of cash, with over half of those involving amounts of $192 or less.

The report suggests that unfairness pervades the system at every stage of forfeiture proceedings, from the inadequacy of initial notice to the complexity and length of cases to the prohibitive cost of reaching a final hearing before a judge. Property owners who disputed forfeitures had to appear a median of four times before having their case decided. Failure to appear at every hearing resulted in automatic forfeiture.

The problems of civil asset forfeiture are not limited to Philadelphia. Over the last ten years, law enforcement has taken over $100 million in private property through civil asset forfeiture statewide.

https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-shows-philadelphia-da-seizes-1-million-cash-annually-innocent-philadelphians

[Hugor Hill]

It's not an Obama Admin thing. Change your title.

[falcon45ca]

Civil asset forfeitures are pretty shady for sure, but then again so is driving around with $160K stashed all over your vehicle.

[Mr. Ambien]

Civil asset forfeitures are pretty shady for sure, but then again so is driving around with $160K stashed all over your vehicle.

Perhaps driving around with a lot of cash is shady, but illegal? Necessitating losing the money permanently?

[falcon45ca]

Perhaps driving around with a lot of cash is shady, but illegal? Necessitating losing the money permanently?

I suppose it's illegal in the sense that the burden of proof is on Gorman to show that the money was legally obtained. From what I've read, it looks as though the Judge is taking issue with the government's lack "of candor and fair disclosure to the court" regarding the traffic stops, not that Gorman has satisfied his burden of proof.

The issue looks like it's how the police found the money, not that the money isn't dirty. I'm not really a proponent of civil forfeiture because it's far too broad & able to be abused, but folks who carry neatly pressed, packaged & labelled stacks of bills totalling way over $100K are suspicious to say the least.

[Mr. Ambien]

I suppose it's illegal in the sense that the burden of proof is on Gorman to show that the money was legally obtained. From what I've read, it looks as though the Judge is taking issue with the government's lack "of candor and fair disclosure to the court" regarding the traffic stops, not that Gorman has satisfied his burden of proof.

The issue looks like it's how the police found the money, not that the money isn't dirty. I'm not really a proponent of civil forfeiture because it's far too broad & able to be abused, but folks who carry neatly pressed, packaged & labelled stacks of bills totalling way over $100K are suspicious to say the least.

Well said, not much to argue there.

[Realtor Rod]

If you have proof of where the money is from, how is this even a story? Unless of course it is a proceeds of crime issue. We have our own going on up here. Medicinal grow ops being raided and homes seized under the act and there are plenty.

[Standing_Tall#37]

I suppose it's illegal in the sense that the burden of proof is on Gorman to show that the money was legally obtained. From what I've read, it looks as though the Judge is taking issue with the government's lack "of candor and fair disclosure to the court" regarding the traffic stops, not that Gorman has satisfied his burden of proof.

The issue looks like it's how the police found the money, not that the money isn't dirty. I'm not really a proponent of civil forfeiture because it's far too broad & able to be abused, but folks who carry neatly pressed, packaged & labelled stacks of bills totalling way over $100K are suspicious to say the least.

Last sentence is a pretty big assumption, considering that the only thing in it confirmed is that there was over 100,000 found. Nowhere did it say pressed, packaged or labelled. Maybe that's the guys life savings. Maybe he's retired and sold his house, bought a motor home and kept the excess cash on him.

[falcon45ca]

Last sentence is a pretty big assumption, considering that the only thing in it confirmed is that there was over 100,000 found. Nowhere did it say pressed, packaged or labelled. Maybe that's the guys life savings. Maybe he's retired and sold his house, bought a motor home and kept the excess cash on him.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/judge-cites-government-lack-candor-returning-167000-seized-nevada

Here's video of the officer finding the money, pressed, packaged & labelled as I said. I don't assume, I fact check.

[Canuck Surfer]

Frack; did it say $153,000 in legal fee's to collect $167,000...

[Jimayo]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's constitutionally the government's job to prove it's illegal, not the other way around.

[etsen3]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's constitutionally the government's job to prove it's illegal, not the other way around.

Obama has been pretty weak on civil liberties. He may or may not be fully responsible (I blame the system in general), but certainly not part of the solution as he promised. I like a lot of stuff he's done in other areas, but in terms of basic rights the stuff that has gone on under his watch has been George Bush-level or worse. I mean he fully defended the NSA stuff and is still fighting to continue it.

This cash seizure stuff also has a lot of potential for racial profiling.

[Mr. Ambien]

Obama has been pretty weak on civil liberties. Well he's definitely not fully responsible (I blame the system in general), but certainly not part of the solution as he promised.

Obviously not.

You had Bush who had his AG, Alberto Gonzales, and the DOJ under him (i.e. federal prosecutors) fight in court the fact that American citizens have habeas corpus (i.e. nullifying the fourth and fifth amendments). Like.. really?

You have Obama, his AG Lynch, and their DOJ fighting to keep Bush's spy programs, asset forfeiture programs, secret trade deals, illegal immigrant housing rather than deporting, etc. Change I can believe in.

[Bocivus]

So a guy is driving down the road, albeit slowly, gets harassed by a trooper for not harming or committing fraud on anyone. Then gets stopped again for no apparent reason other than a relay in information from the trooper that initially stopped him. He is not charged with any crime (aside from alleged traffic violations) and still has his property confiscated and THEN has to prove the money he has was obtained in a legal way? It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

Then a guy that refused to be extorted, again, was not found guilty of any crime, had his money returned and STILL was expected to pay the court costs? Sounds like the REAL criminals in this case are the FedGov unjustly extorting money form people only to lose their case and not have to pay the legal ramifications of it all.

Yay Gubment!!

[Mr. Ambien]

So a guy is driving down the road, albeit slowly, gets harassed by a trooper for not harming or committing fraud on anyone. Then gets stopped again for no apparent reason other than a relay in information from the trooper that initially stopped him. He is not charged with any crime (aside from alleged traffic violations) and still has his property confiscated and THEN has to prove the money he has was obtained in a legal way? It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

Then a guy that refused to be extorted, again, was not found guilty of any crime, had his money returned and STILL was expected to pay the court costs? Sounds like the REAL criminals in this case are the FedGov unjustly extorting money form people only to lose their case and not have to pay the legal ramifications of it all.

Yay Gubment!!

That's precisely what I inferred from this.

Even presuming good intentions, the road to hell is paved with good intentions..

In the best case scenario, this is extremely shady. Otherwise, flat out robbery.

But I thought Obama looked after the little guy, why is he sending his federal lawyers from the DOJ to defend the government's practice of theft from innocent people when there were already reforms he supposedly supported?

[Bocivus]

That's precisely what I inferred from this.

Even presuming good intentions, the road to hell is paved with good intentions..

In the best case scenario, this is extremely shady. Otherwise, flat out robbery.

But I thought Obama looked after the little guy, why is he sending his federal lawyers from the DOJ to defend the government's practice of theft from innocent people when there were already reforms he supposedly supported?

I'm going with flat out robbery. It's amazing how the gov is allowed to do so many things that us mere mortals are not, all in the name of "authority" in "representing government".

[SaintPatrick33]

Just the same old pattern, especially since that Patriot Act. No such thing as rights anymore, but people still think they are living in a free and democratic society, as long as the propaganda says you are it must be true!

Disgusting.

[Offensive Threat]

Just the same old pattern, especially since that Patriot Act. No such thing as rights anymore, but people still think they are living in a free and democratic society, as long as the propaganda says you are it must be true!

Yeah, people in the US used to be proud and willing to fight for their freedom. Now they will give it away for a slight feeling of vague security. Its kinda sad.

[elvis15]

It's not an Obama Admin thing. Change your title.

Clickbait, dude. Do you expect any different from the OP?

So a guy is driving down the road, albeit slowly, gets harassed by a trooper for not harming or committing fraud on anyone. Then gets stopped again for no apparent reason other than a relay in information from the trooper that initially stopped him. He is not charged with any crime (aside from alleged traffic violations) and still has his property confiscated and THEN has to prove the money he has was obtained in a legal way? It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

Then a guy that refused to be extorted, again, was not found guilty of any crime, had his money returned and STILL was expected to pay the court costs? Sounds like the REAL criminals in this case are the FedGov unjustly extorting money form people only to lose their case and not have to pay the legal ramifications of it all.

Yay Gubment!!

Clearly a setup, a falsified story to further gain opposition to the government and force a civil uprising!

/sarcasm for any readers not familiar with the poster from any of the gun threads