Brian Silber Law

Civil Forfeiture Attorney

Free Initial Consultation

(954) 462-3636

Show the Way

Terry Rolin of Pittsburgh, PA, Files Lawsuit Against DEA after Agency Confiscates $82,373 Cash at Airport

By

pexels-photo-1719490-300x200A Pennsylvania family has filed a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) after the agency seized $82,373 in cash at Pittsburgh airport because it considers large amounts of cash to be “suspicious.”

The money, which was stored in a Tupperware container, was Terrence Rolin’s life savings. The 79-year-old retired railroad engineer was worried about keeping so much cash on hand, so he asked his daughter, Rebecca Brown, to open a joint bank account and deposit the money.

According to news sources, Brown was to catch a flight to Boston from Pittsburgh International Airport the next day on August 26. She didn’t have time to stop at a bank and deposit the cash, so she confirmed on a government website that it’s legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight before she went to the airport.

However, minutes before departure, a DEA agent met her at the gate and questioned her about the money, which had showed up on a security scan. The agent purportedly demanded to speak to Brown’s father to corroborate her story, but Rolin wasn’t able to verify all the details.

The agent told Brown that their stories didn’t match and seized the cash, sources indicate. Brown claims she was never told if she or her father were suspected of committing any crime, and neither has been charged. She wasn’t carrying any contraband or drugs in her bag, and neither she nor her father have criminal records.

Brown and Rolin have filed a class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania against the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), claiming the agencies violated their Fourth Amendment rights, which bans unlawful search and seizures without probable cause. The suit seeks the return of the money and an injunction against the practice.

“Flying with any amount of cash is completely legal, but once again we see government agents treating American citizens like criminals,” an Institute for Justice attorney told the press. “You don’t forfeit your constitutional rights when you try to board an airplane.”

According to Brown, her father adopted the habit of saving money in cash from her grandparents, who mistrusted banks after living through the Great Depression. She alleges that the loss of the money has prevented her father for getting medical treatment and fixing up his vehicle, which is his only mean of transportation. Rolin is now forced to live on retirement benefits from his job.

DEA agents and other law enforcement agencies have the power to seize and auction of cash and assets linked to criminal activity using a process called civil asset forfeiture. The practice is used by state and federal agencies to confiscate the illicit proceeds of criminal organizations. It has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, with civil liberty groups arguing that police are abusing the system to fatten their budgets.

South Florida Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If you are involved in a civil asset forfeiture case, then you should hire an attorney. Contact Brian Silber, P.A. to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of South Florida’s most experienced civil asset forfeiture attorneys.

Source: 1.16.20 family sues DEA and TSA after man’s life savings were seized.pdf

Texas Police Netted $50 million in Asset Forfeitures in 2017

By

flag-1544223_1920-300x219In 2017, law enforcement across Texas seized more than $50 million in property, cash, and other assets from private citizens. They were able to do so by claiming these assets were linked to crime. While some of these seizures were taken using criminal forfeiture—that is, as part of cases where an individual was found guilty of a crime—others were taken using civil forfeiture. No criminal charges are required for civil asset forfeiture.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office makes no distinction in its records between civil and criminal forfeiture, so it is unknown how much property was taken from individuals not charged with a crime. Attempts by state legislators to force law enforcement to improve their reporting have repeatedly failed.

In 2016, Macario Hernandez was pulled over while driving a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado. Police found 13.5 grams of cannabis in his pocket. As a result, the truck was seized using civil asset forfeiture. The vehicle, however, did not belong to Macario. Instead, it had been loaned to him by his mother, Oralia Rodriguez. Macario’s girlfriend was having a difficult pregnancy, and Oralia had loaned her son the truck to make sure his girlfriend could visit the doctor.

“My sole intention was to help out,” explained Oralia, writing to local prosecutors. “Now I am in this situation of losing what I have worked very hard for. I am begging you. Please allow me to have my truck back.”

After seven weeks, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office agreed to give the vehicle back to Oralia after she agreed never to lend it to her son again. Nonetheless, Oralia had to pay $1,600 in fees in addition to storage and towing fees.

Summing up the problems with civil asset forfeiture in 2014, U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote, “A generation ago in America, asset forfeiture was limited to wresting ill-gotten gains from violent criminals. Today it has a distinctive ‘Alice in Wonderland’ flavor, victimizing innocent citizens who’ve done nothing wrong.”

In 2017, a coalition of state senators from both parties filed a series of bills which attempted to abolish, or at least rein in, civil asset forfeiture. The charge was led by state Sen. Konni Burton (R-Colleyville). “The seizing and keeping of an individual’s property without a criminal conviction is in opposition to everything this country was founded upon, and it must change,” she said.

Faced with opposition from law enforcement agencies, these attempts failed. Burton lost her bid for reelection in November.

In Texas, the burden of proving innocence lies with the property owner in civil asset forfeiture cases. In the words of state Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler), this is akin to forcing innocent owners to “prove a negative.”

Of the 1,000 forfeiture cases in Harris County in 2017, only four or five contested the cases in court. The reason for this, according to state Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) is that people don’t know how to fight the government to get their property back. Also, many property owners cannot afford a lawyer.

For his part, Judge Willett is frustrated by the current situation. “One wonders if our colonial ancestors… would be astonished—watching the government seize then sell the property of guiltless citizens who have not been charged with any crime, much less convicted of one.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2018-12-07 Asset Forfeiture Nets Millions for Texas Police. Will Lawmakers Reform it?

Utah Police Seized Over $2.5 Million in Cash and Property in 2017

By

Last year, police in Utah seized over $2.5 million in cash and property using civil asset forfeiture. This is a sharp increase on the $1.4 million seized in 2016, fueling concerns that property may be taken from innocent people.

Civil asset forfeiture is a system which allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime. Before the property can be seized permanently, law enforcement in Utah is required to show clear, convincing evidence that it was linked to a crime. However, this requirement falls below the standard followed in criminal cases: that it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt.” No criminal charges are needed for police to take property.

Police departments deposit cash obtained through civil asset forfeiture into a state grant. This is then given back to law enforcement agencies in the form of grants. 100 percent of money gained through civil forfeitures is used by law enforcement in Utah to fund itself. Opponents of civil asset forfeiture claim that, because of this, police are incentivized to seize cash and property, leading to accusations of “policing for profit.”

The annual report released by Utah’s Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice outlines the grants awarded to law enforcement. For example, the Davis Metro Drug and Major Crimes task force obtained over $122,00 to be used on overtime, surveillance, and to fund confidential informants. The largest grant awarded, in excess of $227,000, was given to the Weber-Morgan Narcotic Strike Force. Grants awarded to other agencies included money for body cameras and weapons.

Law enforcement reported 334 cases of civil asset forfeiture in 2017. Over 60 percent of these cases ended in a default ruling. That is, these owners did not even attempt to get their property back in court. Since asset forfeiture is a civil and not a criminal procedure, property owners do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Critics say this system unfairly penalizes low-income property owners who may well be innocent but cannot afford to go to court in order to get their property back.

“In the past few years, the public has become increasingly aware of these laws that allow their government to permanently take ownership of a person’s property without even charging that person with a crime,” said Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute. “I think it really rubs people the wrong way to find out the government can take things from innocent people.”

The libertarian Libertas Institute would like to see the system reformed so that a criminal conviction is required before property can be taken permanently. In 2017, only 58 percent of cases where property was taken by civil asset forfeiture ended in convictions.

Brent Jex, president of the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, agrees that cases of property seizure should be tied to criminal charges. Jex does not believe property is currently being taken away from innocent people, but he wants there to be a safeguard to help build public confidence in the system. “You have to be concerned about that to make sure you’re doing it right,” he said.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2018-07-03 Utah Police Can Take Cash and Property From Suspects, Even If Charges Are Never Filed. Last Year, Officers Seized Items Worth $2.5 Million

Utah Police Seized Over $2.5 Million in Cash and Property in 2017

By

Last year, police in Utah seized over $2.5 million in cash and property using civil asset forfeiture. This is a sharp increase on the $1.4 million seized in 2016, fueling concerns that property may be taken from innocent people.

Civil asset forfeiture is a system which allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime. Before the property can be seized permanently, law enforcement in Utah is required to show clear, convincing evidence that it was linked to a crime. However, this requirement falls below the standard followed in criminal cases: that it must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt.” No criminal charges are needed for police to take property.

Police departments deposit cash obtained through civil asset forfeiture into a state grant. This is then given back to law enforcement agencies in the form of grants. 100 percent of money gained through civil forfeitures is used by law enforcement in Utah to fund itself. Opponents of civil asset forfeiture claim that, because of this, police are incentivized to seize cash and property, leading to accusations of “policing for profit.”

The annual report released by Utah’s Commission of Criminal and Juvenile Justice outlines the grants awarded to law enforcement. For example, the Davis Metro Drug and Major Crimes task force obtained over $122,00 to be used on overtime, surveillance, and to fund confidential informants. The largest grant awarded, in excess of $227,000, was given to the Weber-Morgan Narcotic Strike Force. Grants awarded to other agencies included money for body cameras and weapons.

Law enforcement reported 334 cases of civil asset forfeiture in 2017. Over 60 percent of these cases ended in a default ruling. That is, these owners did not even attempt to get their property back in court. Since asset forfeiture is a civil and not a criminal procedure, property owners do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Critics say this system unfairly penalizes low-income property owners who may well be innocent but cannot afford to go to court in order to get their property back.

“In the past few years, the public has become increasingly aware of these laws that allow their government to permanently take ownership of a person’s property without even charging that person with a crime,” said Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute. “I think it really rubs people the wrong way to find out the government can take things from innocent people.”

The libertarian Libertas Institute would like to see the system reformed so that a criminal conviction is required before property can be taken permanently. In 2017, only 58 percent of cases where property was taken by civil asset forfeiture ended in convictions.

Brent Jex, president of the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, agrees that cases of property seizure should be tied to criminal charges. Jex does not believe property is currently being taken away from innocent people, but he wants there to be a safeguard to help build public confidence in the system. “You have to be concerned about that to make sure you’re doing it right,” he said.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Source

2018-07-03 Utah Police Can Take Cash and Property From Suspects, Even If Charges Are Never Filed. Last Year, Officers Seized Items Worth $2.5 Million

Iowa Supreme Court Rules in Case Where Car and Money Were Seized

By

In September 2015, Jean Carlos Herrera was driving his 16-year-old SUV from New York to Los Angeles when law enforcement in Iowa pulled him over. The police did not charge Jean Carlos with any crime. Nonetheless, they seized both his car and the $45,000 in cash they found inside.

When he was pulled over in Pottawattamie County, Jean Carlos refused to allow the police officer to search his vehicle. Despite this, the officer nonetheless examined his car, claiming there were inconsistencies between the story Herrera and his passenger told about why there were traveling across the country. According to a court record, a police dog also examined the car and detected narcotics. No drugs were found in the car.

The officer issued Jean Carlos a speeding ticket when they seized his vehicle and money. They used civil asset forfeiture procedures which means no criminal charges needed to be filed against Jean Carlos for law enforcement to keep his property. Since then, Jean Carlos has fought his way through the Iowa legal system to get his car and money back.

This year, the case had finally made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court. The court’s unanimous, 6-0 ruling will dramatically change the way civil asset forfeiture operates in Iowa.

Firstly, the supreme court found that now, the courts must decide whether law enforcement has lawfully seized items before they can determine any claim against the property. If the government took the property illegally, it may not use it as evidence in a civil asset forfeiture case.

Secondly, law enforcement may not demand property owners answer questions about any seized property as a precondition for returning it to the owner. To do so may mean the owner has to decide between forfeiting any claim on the property or self-incrimination.

Thirdly, prosecutors have in the past avoided paying attorney fees for individuals attempting to get their property back. They have done so by dropping forfeiture cases shortly before there is a ruling. This placed a heavy burden on property owners as the legal fees can exceed the value of the property. The supreme court ruled that prosecutors can no longer avoid paying these fees.

While this ruling does not reform Iowa’s civil asset forfeiture procedures, it will remove barriers to those who are trying to retrieve their property. However, since law enforcement keeps the proceeds from civil asset forfeiture seizures in Iowa, there is still an incentive for police to take property from individuals.

Data published in 2016 shows how Iowa’s law enforcement agencies have dramatically increased their use of civil asset forfeiture over the last thirty years. In 1986, the total amount of statewide civil forfeitures was $49,000. By 1996, that number had risen to over $1.2 million. In 2016, it was $4.9 million.

Merlin Bartz, a former state senator who sat on the committee that helped civil asset forfeiture reform pass in 1996 now believes the system needs reform. “I suspect this is an issue of bureaucratic creep,” he said. “Law enforcement started seeing precedence and history of how the law could be used. I think the process in 1996 was noble, but the bureaucratic creep may have taken the legislation too far.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Attorney

If your lawful property has been seized, then you should hire a lawyer. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation and work with one of Florida’s most experienced civil forfeiture defense attorneys.

Sources

06-01-2018 Iowa Supreme Court Puts a Dent in Property Forfeiture Abuses

10-07-2016 New Data Show Iowa’s Growing Take of Personal Property