30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire propertyCrime 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.
That is absolutely insane. Surely any competent federal judge tosses this with prejudice.30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire property
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.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/
are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187
30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire propertyCrime 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.
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.'scoobygang said: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.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 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.'scoobygang said: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.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/
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."
The Caswells' trial starts Monday in Boston. The Institute for Justice is litigating for them.are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187
30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire propertyCrime 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.
"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.
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.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/
Caswells winThe 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.are you ####### kidding me? WTF? Occupy Tewksburry.http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1372187
30 arrests out of 125,000 rentals over 16 years is grounds for the government to seize your entire propertyCrime 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.
"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.
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.
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.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."
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.I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.
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.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.I hope this gains some momentum. It would be pretty huge.
its a start.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.This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.
From the article:Doesn't matter in the long run if the next guy just goes back to the old policy.This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.
Bipartisan legislation to change the civil asset forfeiture laws. Maybe this does hold for the long haul.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.
I could see a spin that paints this as the Feds robbing local and state givernment.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.
[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]IMO the impact these kind of moves is often underestimated.[/SIZE]Doesn't matter in the long run if the next guy just goes back to the old policy.This is huge. Mad props to Eric Holder.
Hasn't Holder given directives in the past related to respecting States rights and marijuana that haven't led to any real changes?Good for Eric Holder. I have an extremely low opinion of Holder, but I have to give him credit on this one.
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.Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.
I read it. Good article. This forfeiture stuff infuriates me.Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.
I also read it, but I clicked the link and read from there.I read it. Good article. This forfeiture stuff infuriates me.Sorry, but no one is going to read that 627-line paragraph.
Wonderful policing theory. People are being robbed, so arrest the people who are being robbed. BOOM no more targets and robberies decline. Win-win.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.”