Police seizures/forfeitures getting out of hand? (1 Viewer)

[griff321]

WOW! It's shocking that the police would supplement income from seizures. SHOCKING!

 

[griff321]

On a serious note Minnesota had a had a huge scandal involving one of it's most prominent LEO groups in the state over seizing stuff and not reporting it. The best part is my DARE officer was a part of it. :rofl:

http://www.startribune.com/investigators/79103432.html?page=1&c=y

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1372187

Crime pays for police

By Larry Salzman / As you were saying...

Monday, October 10, 2011 - Updated 21 hours ago

Russell and Patricia Caswell are a hard-working couple who may soon have their American Dream taken from them by the unholy alliance of local and federal law enforcement officials seeking to cash in on the Caswell’s property.

The Caswells face this dilemma even though they have broken no law and have spent their entire professional career working to combat crime with the very police force that now seeks to take their property though civil forfeiture. What is happening to Russ and Pat, however, is by no means an isolated instance and local law enforcement’s end-run around state laws designed to end the abuse of civil forfeiture should give anyone who owns Massachusetts property pause.

The Caswells have owned and operated the Motel Caswell in Tewksbury for more than 30 years. They took it over from Russ’s father, who built it in the 1950s. The motel is mortgage-free and the Caswells expected it to provide for their retirement. And it is precisely because they don’t owe on the property that they now face the loss of their life’s work.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Tewksbury Police Department plan to take the entire property — worth well over $1 million — because on some 30 dates since 1994 guests staying at the motel have been arrested for drug-related crimes. During that period, the Caswells have rented more than 125,000 rooms.

The government doesn’t claim that the Caswells are guilty of any crime. The government only says that federal civil forfeiture laws give them the power to take the property.

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to take property when the government suspects it of being used in criminal activity, regardless of whether the owner is guilty or innocent.

Over the years drug and gang activity have become commonplace in Tewksbury, but — out of their own self-interest to run a crime-free establishment — the Caswells have worked hard to prevent it from bleeding onto their property. They report suspicious activities and crime to the police. They have installed security cameras, inspect the rooms and, upon request, make available to police the auto and identity records of guests.

Incredibly, until the government filed papers in federal court to seize the motel, no one from the police department ever suggested to the Caswells that they should do more than they have always done to prevent crime on their property.

But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence. For the Caswells, that means squaring off against the U.S. attorney’s office in federal court to make the difficult if not impossible case that they did not know that guests brought drugs into their rented rooms.

Even more shocking, local police and the federal government have a direct financial stake in the forfeiture. Through so-called “equitable sharing,” Washington pays local police departments 80 percent of what they seize and keeps the rest.

Equitable sharing has become a jackpot for state and local law enforcement nationwide, which received more than $400 million last year alone from the Department of Justice. Massachusetts agencies got nearly $5 million in equitable sharing from various federal agencies.

The case against the Caswells should be dropped because they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Local police departments shouldn’t be allowed to take property to fund their own budgets, which is exactly what the proceeds from the Caswells’ property would be used for. As this case makes clear, fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as government can take a person’s property without convicting them of a crime.

Larry Salzman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that is representing the Caswell family.

30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property

 

[NCCommish]

30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property

That is absolutely insane. Surely any competent federal judge tosses this with prejudice.

 

[scoobygang]

fwiw in the scotus case cited in the article, the court ruled the issue moot because the cars were given back to the owners? wtf? how does taking someones car for a few years and then giving it back make the issue of it's theft moot?what a crock.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alvarez-v-smith/

The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. Once the property is given back there is no case or controversy. The decision seems clearly correct as a matter of justiciability.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187

Crime pays for police

By Larry Salzman / As you were saying...

Monday, October 10, 2011 - Updated 21 hours ago

Russell and Patricia Caswell are a hard-working couple who may soon have their American Dream taken from them by the unholy alliance of local and federal law enforcement officials seeking to cash in on the Caswell's property.

The Caswells face this dilemma even though they have broken no law and have spent their entire professional career working to combat crime with the very police force that now seeks to take their property though civil forfeiture. What is happening to Russ and Pat, however, is by no means an isolated instance and local law enforcement's end-run around state laws designed to end the abuse of civil forfeiture should give anyone who owns Massachusetts property pause.

The Caswells have owned and operated the Motel Caswell in Tewksbury for more than 30 years. They took it over from Russ's father, who built it in the 1950s. The motel is mortgage-free and the Caswells expected it to provide for their retirement. And it is precisely because they don't owe on the property that they now face the loss of their life's work.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Tewksbury Police Department plan to take the entire property — worth well over $1 million — because on some 30 dates since 1994 guests staying at the motel have been arrested for drug-related crimes. During that period, the Caswells have rented more than 125,000 rooms.

The government doesn't claim that the Caswells are guilty of any crime. The government only says that federal civil forfeiture laws give them the power to take the property.

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to take property when the government suspects it of being used in criminal activity, regardless of whether the owner is guilty or innocent.

Over the years drug and gang activity have become commonplace in Tewksbury, but — out of their own self-interest to run a crime-free establishment — the Caswells have worked hard to prevent it from bleeding onto their property. They report suspicious activities and crime to the police. They have installed security cameras, inspect the rooms and, upon request, make available to police the auto and identity records of guests.

Incredibly, until the government filed papers in federal court to seize the motel, no one from the police department ever suggested to the Caswells that they should do more than they have always done to prevent crime on their property.

But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence. For the Caswells, that means squaring off against the U.S. attorney's office in federal court to make the difficult if not impossible case that they did not know that guests brought drugs into their rented rooms.

Even more shocking, local police and the federal government have a direct financial stake in the forfeiture. Through so-called "equitable sharing," Washington pays local police departments 80 percent of what they seize and keeps the rest.

Equitable sharing has become a jackpot for state and local law enforcement nationwide, which received more than $400 million last year alone from the Department of Justice. Massachusetts agencies got nearly $5 million in equitable sharing from various federal agencies.

The case against the Caswells should be dropped because they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Local police departments shouldn't be allowed to take property to fund their own budgets, which is exactly what the proceeds from the Caswells' property would be used for. As this case makes clear, fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as government can take a person's property without convicting them of a crime.

Larry Salzman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that is representing the Caswell family.

30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property

are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

fwiw in the scotus case cited in the article, the court ruled the issue moot because the cars were given back to the owners? wtf? how does taking someones car for a few years and then giving it back make the issue of it's theft moot?

what a crock.

http://www.scotusblo...lvarez-v-smith/

The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. Once the property is given back there is no case or controversy. The decision seems clearly correct as a matter of justiciability.

I always thought mootness was a crock of ####. This is is why. Because they will continue to do this to 1000 people and when one person fights them long enough to get to scotus they will just give em back.These forfeiture laws are horridly abusive and would make king george proud.

 

[Sarnoff]

Charlie Sheen was arrested with a ton of cocaine at The Plaza Hotel in NYC, so, we should probably get the government to seize all 20 or so US properties owned by the Fairmont Hotels chain.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

So aside from an android police officer patrolling the streets, Robocop has proven to be a nearly prophetic movie?

 

[Christo]

fwiw in the scotus case cited in the article, the court ruled the issue moot because the cars were given back to the owners? wtf? how does taking someones car for a few years and then giving it back make the issue of it's theft moot?what a crock.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alvarez-v-smith/

The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. Once the property is given back there is no case or controversy. The decision seems clearly correct as a matter of justiciability.

The more interesting issue was the fact that the SCOTUS vacated the 7th Circuit's opinion wherein it found that the Illinois forfeiture law violated the Due Process Clause. In his dissent, Stevens said the the majority misapplied the law because even though the property was returned there was no settlement between the parties which would require the 7th Circuit's opinion to be vacated.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

this last one needs its own thread. unreal.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case

By Phil Williams

Chief Investigative Reporter

MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."

That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.

For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call "policing for profit."

In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.

"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.

As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.

"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."

In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.

But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency."

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.

"It's possible," he admitted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?

"He did," the officer acknowledged.

"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."

So why did he leave that out?

"I don't know," the officer said.

Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."

"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."

And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.

That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.

"Were you convicted?" we wanted to know.

"No, I wasn't convicted," he answered.

But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money.

"Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said.

Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.

"We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said.

"Nobody cares."

This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.

After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.

They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.

He got the check, but no apology.

"If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said.

And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.

"I really don't want to come back here," he said.

As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.

It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.

And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.

He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.

Miles called that "extortion."

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187

Crime pays for police

By Larry Salzman / As you were saying...

Monday, October 10, 2011 - Updated 21 hours ago

Russell and Patricia Caswell are a hard-working couple who may soon have their American Dream taken from them by the unholy alliance of local and federal law enforcement officials seeking to cash in on the Caswell's property.

The Caswells face this dilemma even though they have broken no law and have spent their entire professional career working to combat crime with the very police force that now seeks to take their property though civil forfeiture. What is happening to Russ and Pat, however, is by no means an isolated instance and local law enforcement's end-run around state laws designed to end the abuse of civil forfeiture should give anyone who owns Massachusetts property pause.

The Caswells have owned and operated the Motel Caswell in Tewksbury for more than 30 years. They took it over from Russ's father, who built it in the 1950s. The motel is mortgage-free and the Caswells expected it to provide for their retirement. And it is precisely because they don't owe on the property that they now face the loss of their life's work.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Tewksbury Police Department plan to take the entire property — worth well over $1 million — because on some 30 dates since 1994 guests staying at the motel have been arrested for drug-related crimes. During that period, the Caswells have rented more than 125,000 rooms.

The government doesn't claim that the Caswells are guilty of any crime. The government only says that federal civil forfeiture laws give them the power to take the property.

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to take property when the government suspects it of being used in criminal activity, regardless of whether the owner is guilty or innocent.

Over the years drug and gang activity have become commonplace in Tewksbury, but — out of their own self-interest to run a crime-free establishment — the Caswells have worked hard to prevent it from bleeding onto their property. They report suspicious activities and crime to the police. They have installed security cameras, inspect the rooms and, upon request, make available to police the auto and identity records of guests.

Incredibly, until the government filed papers in federal court to seize the motel, no one from the police department ever suggested to the Caswells that they should do more than they have always done to prevent crime on their property.

But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence. For the Caswells, that means squaring off against the U.S. attorney's office in federal court to make the difficult if not impossible case that they did not know that guests brought drugs into their rented rooms.

Even more shocking, local police and the federal government have a direct financial stake in the forfeiture. Through so-called "equitable sharing," Washington pays local police departments 80 percent of what they seize and keeps the rest.

Equitable sharing has become a jackpot for state and local law enforcement nationwide, which received more than $400 million last year alone from the Department of Justice. Massachusetts agencies got nearly $5 million in equitable sharing from various federal agencies.

The case against the Caswells should be dropped because they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Local police departments shouldn't be allowed to take property to fund their own budgets, which is exactly what the proceeds from the Caswells' property would be used for. As this case makes clear, fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as government can take a person's property without convicting them of a crime.

Larry Salzman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that is representing the Caswell family.

30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property

are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.

The Caswells' trial starts Monday in Boston. The Institute for Justice is litigating for them.

If they lose the trial because 30 out of 125,000 guests in their hotel were arrested, they'll lose their million-dollar business entirely and will receive no compensation.

"Civil forfeiture treats innocent property owners like the Caswells worse than criminals," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney on the case. "Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken, but once the government targets a property for forfeiture an owner must prove himself innocent to get it back: This turns the American idea that you're innocent until proven guilty on its head and is one of the main perversions of the legal system we're fighting against in this case."

The Motel Caswell was built by Russ's father in 1955 and has been operated by two generations of the Caswell family. The property is now owned free and clear, which is one of the reasons it is such an attractive target for the taking; anything the government gets after the forfeiture would be pure profit.

 

[NCCommish]

####### disgusting

 

[Statcruncher]

This world sucks sometimes.

 

[DocGonzo]

Out of hand doesn't even scratch the surface. These seizure and forfeiture laws are absolutely horrible. I had a case not too long ago where the police sent an informant in to buy a small bit of weed from a guy. They arrested him on the weed charge, then confiscated nearly everything he owned. Televisions, computers, cars, etc. We had to negotiate to get the bulk of his property back. The worst part is the he collected coins etc. When the police seized the coins they took many of them out of their protective sleeves etc and just dumped them in a bucket. This rendered many of these quite valuable coins worth not much more than scrap as some of them had never even been touched by human hands or at least without gloves. Absolutely no reason for these to have been seized. There was no provable nexus between the coins and the weed sale and the prosecutors knew it. They didn't put up much of a fight in returning the coins, but also showed absolutely zero remorse for the way they handled them and diminished their value.

Had another one that was similar. We negotiated to get most of the property back but when it came time to turn it over the police suddenly couldn't find the 46" flat screen TV they took.

A guy named Dean Kuipers wrote a pretty good book several years back called "Burning Rainbow Farm" about an incident in Southwest Michigan. The parts where he gets into the seizure/forfeit laws will make you sick.

Rainbow Farm

The book

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

fwiw in the scotus case cited in the article, the court ruled the issue moot because the cars were given back to the owners? wtf? how does taking someones car for a few years and then giving it back make the issue of it's theft moot?what a crock.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alvarez-v-smith/

The issue was moot because there was no precedent for how long property could be held before civil forfeiture hearing. In the absence of such precedent (i.e. "clearly established law" holding the conduct to be a constitutional violation), you couldn't get a judgment against the officers because they would have qualified immunity. So the only remedy available to claimants would be injunctive relief ordering the return of their property. Which had already been returned. The only thing the court could issue was an advisory opinion. Courts don't issue advisory opinions. I'm a little shocked that there was even a dissent.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm dealing with this problem, both from the civil forfeiture statutes and the criminal statutes with a client right now. The State will seize my client's bank accounts. We'll go contest the forfeiture, have the judge order an appropriate sum placed in escrow with the court, and the State will just go back in front of another judge ex parte and try to seize the funds again. My client can't open a bank account because the banks can see all the frozen accounts and don't want to do business with the guy.

Keeping in mind that the State often moves to have the affidavit supporting the seizure sealed, I have to do motions practice just to have the information to fairly dispute the forfeiture. I suppose that's good for my fees. But it's awful for my client.

 

[Chaka]

Another great example of why drugs will never be legalized or decriminalized.

I presume both Dems and Repubs are lockstep in favor of this B.S. too.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187

Crime pays for police

By Larry Salzman / As you were saying...

Monday, October 10, 2011 - Updated 21 hours ago

Russell and Patricia Caswell are a hard-working couple who may soon have their American Dream taken from them by the unholy alliance of local and federal law enforcement officials seeking to cash in on the Caswell's property.

The Caswells face this dilemma even though they have broken no law and have spent their entire professional career working to combat crime with the very police force that now seeks to take their property though civil forfeiture. What is happening to Russ and Pat, however, is by no means an isolated instance and local law enforcement's end-run around state laws designed to end the abuse of civil forfeiture should give anyone who owns Massachusetts property pause.

The Caswells have owned and operated the Motel Caswell in Tewksbury for more than 30 years. They took it over from Russ's father, who built it in the 1950s. The motel is mortgage-free and the Caswells expected it to provide for their retirement. And it is precisely because they don't owe on the property that they now face the loss of their life's work.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Tewksbury Police Department plan to take the entire property — worth well over $1 million — because on some 30 dates since 1994 guests staying at the motel have been arrested for drug-related crimes. During that period, the Caswells have rented more than 125,000 rooms.

The government doesn't claim that the Caswells are guilty of any crime. The government only says that federal civil forfeiture laws give them the power to take the property.

Civil forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to take property when the government suspects it of being used in criminal activity, regardless of whether the owner is guilty or innocent.

Over the years drug and gang activity have become commonplace in Tewksbury, but — out of their own self-interest to run a crime-free establishment — the Caswells have worked hard to prevent it from bleeding onto their property. They report suspicious activities and crime to the police. They have installed security cameras, inspect the rooms and, upon request, make available to police the auto and identity records of guests.

Incredibly, until the government filed papers in federal court to seize the motel, no one from the police department ever suggested to the Caswells that they should do more than they have always done to prevent crime on their property.

But civil forfeiture laws treat property owners worse than criminals. Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken. Once the government targets a property for civil forfeiture, however, the property owner must prove his innocence. For the Caswells, that means squaring off against the U.S. attorney's office in federal court to make the difficult if not impossible case that they did not know that guests brought drugs into their rented rooms.

Even more shocking, local police and the federal government have a direct financial stake in the forfeiture. Through so-called "equitable sharing," Washington pays local police departments 80 percent of what they seize and keeps the rest.

Equitable sharing has become a jackpot for state and local law enforcement nationwide, which received more than $400 million last year alone from the Department of Justice. Massachusetts agencies got nearly $5 million in equitable sharing from various federal agencies.

The case against the Caswells should be dropped because they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Local police departments shouldn't be allowed to take property to fund their own budgets, which is exactly what the proceeds from the Caswells' property would be used for. As this case makes clear, fair and impartial law enforcement cannot exist as long as government can take a person's property without convicting them of a crime.

Larry Salzman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that is representing the Caswell family.

30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property

are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.

The Caswells' trial starts Monday in Boston. The Institute for Justice is litigating for them. If they lose the trial because 30 out of 125,000 guests in their hotel were arrested, they'll lose their million-dollar business entirely and will receive no compensation.

"Civil forfeiture treats innocent property owners like the Caswells worse than criminals," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney on the case. "Criminals must be proven guilty before their property is taken, but once the government targets a property for forfeiture an owner must prove himself innocent to get it back: This turns the American idea that you're innocent until proven guilty on its head and is one of the main perversions of the legal system we're fighting against in this case."

The Motel Caswell was built by Russ's father in 1955 and has been operated by two generations of the Caswell family. The property is now owned free and clear, which is one of the reasons it is such an attractive target for the taking; anything the government gets after the forfeiture would be pure profit.

Caswells win

U.S. NEWS

Updated January 25, 2013, 7:33 p.m. ET

Court Rejects Justice Department Seizure of Motel

By GARY FIELDS And JOHN R. EMSHWILLER

A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's effort to seize a family-owned motel in Tewksbury, Mass., a decision that could rein in the federal government's power to seize private property.

The government argued the property, known as the Motel Caswell, was forfeitable because it has been connected to criminal activity, in this case 15 drug-related incidents that took place between 1994 and 2008. The Caswell family, owners of the motel through a trust, said it had nothing do with the drug activities.

In a sometimes scathing ruling, which for now halts the civil action brought by the federal government, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Dein said the federal government "had not met its burden of proving a substantial connection between the Motel Caswell and the forfeitable crimes, and, therefore, has not met its burden of proving that the Property is forfeitable."

The judge added that the motel's proprietor, Russell Caswell, of Tewksbury, Mass., did meet his "burden of proving the innocent owner defense."

Mr. Caswell's case, which was detailed in a page-one Wall Street Journal article in 2011, challenged the U.S. government's asset-forfeiture system, which collects billions of dollars each year of cash, real estate, cars and other assets. In some cases, property has been seized without the owner being convicted of a crime. The proceeds from those seizures are often doled out to local authorities who participate in the investigations that lead to the seizures.

Law-enforcement authorities argue the laws afford adequate citizen protections and are important tools used to drain the wealth of drug traffickers and other criminal enterprises.

The U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement that it respected the opinion, but added that the case "was strictly a law-enforcement effort to crack down on what was seen as a pattern of using the motel to further the commission of drug crimes for nearly three decades. We are weighing our options with respect to appeal." The government has 60 days to appeal.

Judge Dein said there no evidence that Mr. Caswell or his employees were aware of the criminal activity until after the fact, and noted they had on several occasions contacted the authorities to inform them about suspicious activities. She noted the hotel had been licensed every year by local Tewskbury authorities.

Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm in Arlington, Va., that represented the Caswells on pro bono basis, said the judge's ruling could have wider implications if other federal districts pick up on it.

"Until this decision there were very few federal decisions" that maintained that "substantial connection" required a direct link to the crimes by the owner of the property being forfeited, she said. "In the past all they had to establish was someone was selling drugs on the property. That's all that was necessary."

The decision "will make it tougher for the government to initiate forfeiture proceedings or file complaints based on the actions of third parties," Ms. Sheth said.

 

[Jobber]

Outstanding ruling.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Insanity. Finally a win for the good guys.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Other than incarceration of millions of Americans for drug offenses, asset forfeiture is the worst thing that came out of the sham war on drugs and the expansion of the American police state Reagan began, Clinton continued, and no one yet has the sack to stop.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

http://www.newschann...for-profit-case

Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case

By Phil Williams

Chief Investigative Reporter

MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."

That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.

For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call "policing for profit."

In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.

"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.

As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.

"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."

In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.

But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency."

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.

"It's possible," he admitted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?

"He did," the officer acknowledged.

"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."

So why did he leave that out?

"I don't know," the officer said.

Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."

"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."

And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.

That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.

"Were you convicted?" we wanted to know.

"No, I wasn't convicted," he answered.

But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money.

"Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said.

Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.

"We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said.

"Nobody cares."

This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.

After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.

They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.

He got the check, but no apology.

"If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said.

And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.

"I really don't want to come back here," he said.

As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.

It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.

And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.

He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.

Miles called that "extortion."

And people wonder why some of us are suspicious of the police, suspicious of having guns taken away from citizens, make no mistake that while America is still the best country to live in, it certainly has its black eyes across the country. That is just shameful and the justice department should act swiftly and permanently remove any officer who ever took part in this, I don't care if it wiped out an entire police department or hundreds of officers, none of them should be thinking this is remotely anything other than ARMED ROBBERY and they should all be stripped of their badges and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.

Obviously I strongly support this. But there's no way it passes. Like most of these kind of issues, a relatively small number of beneficiaries (in this case, semi-crooked law enforcement agencies) benefit tremendously and are presumably willing to devote a lot resources to keeping asset forfeiture as easy as it is today. Whereas the large number of people who care about civil liberties have other stuff to worry about and aren't as directly engaged with the issue.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.

Obviously I strongly support this. But there's no way it passes. Like most of these kind of issues, a relatively small number of beneficiaries (in this case, semi-crooked law enforcement agencies) benefit tremendously and are presumably willing to devote a lot resources to keeping asset forfeiture as easy as it is today. Whereas the large number of people who care about civil liberties have other stuff to worry about and aren't as directly engaged with the issue.

You could say the same thing about marijuana legalization. The political difficulties in overcoming special interests are very real. But there's a point, I think, where popular sentiment can overcome them.

The public is already against civil asset forfeiture as it's now practiced. The issue just needs to gain a lot more momentum. I don't know whether that's realistically likely, but I'm hoping.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In addition to forfeiture, the registry provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act can really give prosecutors a lot of power that they shouldn't have.

I used to represent a client that made the software for internet sweepstakes cafes in Ohio. Not surprisingly, law enforcement in Ohio thought this was illegal gambling. We thought it didn't qualify as gambling under the statute. They tried to seize assets twice before they ever returned an indictment and twice after the indictment. Once we got money returned, they just found another judge.

But that wasn't the bad part. Once they got the first seizure, our client was put on a list that flagged them as potential suspects in "terrorist and/or racketeering" cases. So the banks kept shutting down our client's bank accounts and we couldn't open any other ones.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't particularly like this client. And internet sweepstakes cafes are creepy. But it was already overreach to charge racketeering when there was no dispute over what this company was selling. This was just way worse. We thought we had a 50/50 shot in court, but we had no way to keep fighting.

 

[NCCommish]

I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.

I hate when I have to agree with Rand but I really like this.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Momentum.

 

[NCCommish]

Momentum.

Awesome

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

 

[PIK95]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

its a start.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

its a start.

This.

 

[Gawain]

As a registered Republican, I will be sad if this action is criticized as an attack on police.

Stopping these seizures is something everyone should agree on.

 

[SacramentoBob]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

Doesn't matter in the long run if the next guy just goes back to the old policy.

 

[Road Warriors]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

Doesn't matter in the long run if the next guy just goes back to the old policy.

From the article:

Holder’s action comes as members of both parties in Congress are working together to craft legislation to overhaul civil asset forfeiture. On Jan. 9, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing.

Bipartisan legislation to change the civil asset forfeiture laws. Maybe this does hold for the long haul.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Awesome.

 

[Ilov80s]

As a registered Republican, I will be sad if this action is criticized as an attack on police.

Stopping these seizures is something everyone should agree on.

I could see a spin that paints this as the Feds robbing local and state givernment.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.

Doesn't matter in the long run if the next guy just goes back to the old policy.

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]IMO the impact these kind of moves is often underestimated.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]I[/SIZE]f you've got the political wind at your back (as Obama does on this issue), it's actually kind of hard for the next guy to just undo it. Obviously a Dem wouldn't want to, and a Republican might not feel strong enough about it to take the political hit.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Some commentary by Balko.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Good for Eric Holder. I have an extremely low opinion of Holder, but I have to give him credit on this one.

 

[Foosball God]

Some commentary by Balko.

Good article

 

[Ilov80s]

Good for Eric Holder. I have an extremely low opinion of Holder, but I have to give him credit on this one.

Hasn't Holder given directives in the past related to respecting States rights and marijuana that haven't led to any real changes?

 

[The Big Guy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/01/27/fairfax-swat-team-raids-high-stakes-great-falls-poker-game-seizes-cash-terrifies-players/

On a quiet weeknight among the stately manors of Great Falls, ten men sat around a table in the basement of a private home last November playing high stakes poker. Suddenly, masked and heavily armed SWAT team officers from the Fairfax County Police Department burst through the door, pointed their assault rifles at the players and ordered them to put their hands on the table. The players complied. Their cash was seized, including a reported $150,000 from the game’s host, and eight of the ten players were charged with the Class 3 misdemeanor of illegal gambling, punishable by a maximum fine of $500. The minimum buy-in for the game was $20,000, with re-buys allowed if you lost your first twenty grand.

This was not your everyday cash game with the neighbors. The buy-in was twice what it costs to enter the World Series of Poker’s main event in Las Vegas (though the Great Falls players did not have to pay the whole $20,000 up front). Two established poker pros were at the Great Falls table and another was hosting the game, taking a roughly 1.5 percent cut from the buy-ins to pay for two dealers and two assistants to make coffee runs or give massages to the players. “Taking a cut” is what elevates a poker game, in the minds of the Fairfax police, into a criminal enterprise. But the host has not been charged and the search warrant used to raid the house remains sealed. The host declined to comment.

One regular at the game said he glanced out the French doors in the basement, and “I saw these helmets bobbing up and down” in the darkened backyard. The shadowy figures yelled that they were Fairfax County police with a search warrant, then opened the door and about eight officers in black marched in. “They were all yelling, ‘Does anybody have a weapon?’ and ‘please don’t move’” at the seated players, the player said. “One pointed his assault rifle at me and said, ‘Hands up.’ And I can’t believe this is happening.”

There were no guns at the table, and no resistance, the player said. “They could’ve sent a retired detective with a clipboard and gotten the same result,” he added. He requested anonymity so as not to jeopardize the case against him or his professional career.

Raids by Fairfax police on private poker games are not new — a similar game in Great Falls was raided in 2005. But in 2006, a SWAT team was called in to arrest a single suspect accused of betting on football games, and Officer Deval Bullock accidentally shot and killed optometrist Salvatore J. Culosi Jr. After that, the Fairfax police said they would use their tactical teams more judiciously. Still, the Fairfax police have continued to be unapologetic in their aggressive enforcement of gambling laws, as seen by their willingness to bet and lose large amounts of money to take down sports bookies. They will even make the effort to place an informant in a poker game and they are still willing to wield their heavy artillery to take down a roomful of unarmed poker players.

Fairfax police said they could not discuss the Great Falls case since it is still under investigation. “In general though,” police spokeswoman Lucy Caldwell said, “detectives have seen that some of the organized card games, even in private homes, may involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. At times, we’ve seen illegal activity involved in these games. Additionally, at times, illegal weapons are present. With these large amounts of cash involved, the risks are high. We’ve worked cases where there have been armed robberies.”

After they got over the shock of staring down the barrels of high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles, then being interrogated and charged with a crime, the players and dealers all shared a similar goal: to wriggle out of getting a conviction, even a misdemeanor, on their records. Their lawyers were ready to go to trial in Fairfax General District Court last Thursday, and to challenge whether the Virginia gambling law’s definition of “games of chance” covers poker. In 2013, the Supreme Court considered and thendeclined to rule on whether poker qualified as a game of skill, and the Great Falls case appeared ripe to make legal history.

But the Fairfax prosecutors, with what the lawyers said was the police detectives’ blessing, cut them a deal: stay clean for six months and the gambling charge would be dismissed, and eligible to be expunged from their record. And for those who had cash seized from them — one player had more than $20,000, the regular player said — the police agreed to return 60 percent of the money, and keep 40 percent. Though the police use of civil forfeiture is being revised in federal courts, in Virginia state courts the local police agency may keep 100 percent of what they seize. And what the Fairfax police organized crime and narcotics section, which investigates gambling, will do with their seizure proceeds, they will not say.

The defendants decided to take their deals and keep their mouths shut. Only one player spoke for the record, though his account of events was verified by others involved in the case.

The Great Falls game itself is not a big secret. It has been running regularly for several years now, and big name pros such as Phil Laak and Antonio Esfandiari have played there. Players are given $20,000 in chips, though much of that is on credit, the regular player said, and at the end of the night those who lose write checks to make up for what they owe, rather than carry big cash to the game. The only games played are no limit Texas Hold Em and pot limit Omaha.

An informant apparently assisted the police with their investigation, the regular player and lawyers said. A new player joined the game the week before the raid, the regular player said, and it was clear to the poker vets that “he didn’t know what he was doing” while playing Omaha, a nine-card version of stud hold ‘em poker. Then, he left after only playing for two hours — highly unusual for anyone who sits down in the middle of a serious poker group like this one.

The following week, the new guy was back. And after the SWAT team made its entrance, followed by the detectives from the organized crime section, the new guy was the first person taken out of the room to be interviewed, the regular said. Then, the man was not charged.

The rest of the players, including the host and the two dealers, were given numbers and interviewed individually, the player said. He said two detectives asked him about the game and then one said, “Did you know that this game is illegal?” The player said he told the police, “to me, it’s a bunch of consenting adults playing cards in somebody’s basement.”

But Virginia law defines “illegal gambling” as any wager of money made for a chance to win a prize or stake based on any contest “the outcome of which is uncertain or a matter of chance.” Virginia law does allow private “games of chance” if there is “no operator” involved, but anyone who operates a game with “gross revenue of $2,000 or more in any single day” is in violation. The player said the host of the Great Falls game only took a cut of the money to pay the dealers and player assistants.

The regular player said the police told him, “The reason we’re here is there are Asian gangs targeting these games,” and it’s certainly true that some private gambling events in Fairfax County have been robbed by nefarious elements. The player said he wanted to respond, “So you robbed us first,” but he did not.

One of the players was not charged because he was waiting for a seat. As he was walking out, the regular said that player was told by Detective David Baucom that he was not charged “because you hadn’t bought in.”

Baucom was also the detective who had been making football bets with Culosi in 2005 and early 2006, and then made the request for a SWAT team to help him serve a search warrant and arrest Culosi, though the optometrist had no criminal record and no known weapons. Culosi walked out to Baucom’s vehicle in his socks, handed Baucom his winnings, and Baucom signaled for his SWAT backup. Bullock pulled up, climbed out of his SUV and said the door banged him on his left side, causing him to involuntarily pull the trigger and shoot Culosi once in the chest. The killing cost Fairfax taxpayers $2 million to pay a settlement of the Culosi family’s wrongful death suit.

Meanwhile, then-Chief David M. Rohrer in 2007 issued a detailed report of the Culosi incident, including the decision by Baucom and his superiors to involve a SWAT team. “Our administrative investigation identified gaps in decision-making guidelines,” Rohrer wrote. “We are modifying our policies so the use of any higher- or high-risk tactics is not ‘automatic,’ but rather must be warranted and reasonable based on articulated criteria and a risk assessment in each case.”

Caldwell, the police spokeswoman, said this week that “based on our training and experience with these high stakes gambling cases, we analyze information in advance, and, very carefully. At times, the SWAT is deployed based on information we’ve gleaned. Obviously, this is a case-by-case basis; it is not ‘routine.’”

“It’s crazy,” said the regular, looking back on the night of the raid. “They had this ‘shock and awe’ with all of these guys, with their rifles up and wearing ski masks.” He noted that the Justice Department recentlyrevamped its guidelines for civil forfeiture cases, following reports by The Post about abuses of the seizure process by police around the country,including Fairfax. But in Virginia, the seizure law remains the same, and agencies may keep what they seize, after going through a court process.

Damn, that is a new low...40% police rake on winnings. They must have needed a fresh cash infusion in the police dept for this budget year.

 

[Jack White]

Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.

 

[The Big Guy]

Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.

I know that the 2 bolded lines in the article are too much for you to handle, but for the tl:dr crowd,Swat crashes high stakes poker game, take 40% of cash under forfeiture laws.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.

I read it. Good article. This forfeiture stuff infuriates me.

 

[Ilov80s]

Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.

I read it. Good article. This forfeiture stuff infuriates me.

I also read it, but I clicked the link and read from there.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The regular player said the police told him, “The reason we’re here is there are Asian gangs targeting these games,” and it’s certainly true that some private gambling events in Fairfax County have been robbed by nefarious elements. The player said he wanted to respond, “So you robbed us first,” but he did not.

One of the players was not charged because he was waiting for a seat. As he was walking out, the regular said that player was told by Detective David Baucom that he was not charged “because you hadn’t bought in.”

Wonderful policing theory. People are being robbed, so arrest the people who are being robbed. BOOM no more targets and robberies decline. Win-win.