[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Humor
See other Humor Articles

Title: The DEA seized her father’s life savings at an airport without alleging any crime occurred, lawsuit says
Source: The Seattle Times
URL Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation ... y-crime-occurred-lawsuit-says/
Published: Jan 17, 2020
Author: Justin Jouvenal (The Washington Post)
Post Date: 2020-01-17 10:11:03 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 8621
Comments: 78

Every dollar Terry Rolin had saved over a lifetime was stacked in a large Tupperware container: $82,373. At 79, he was aging and worried about keeping so much cash on hand, his daughter said, so during one of her visits he asked her to open a joint bank account.

Rebecca Brown was catching a flight home from the Pittsburgh airport early the next day and said she didn’t have time to stop at a bank. She confirmed on a government website that it’s legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.

But just minutes before departure in late August, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent met her at the busy gate and questioned her about the cash, which showed up on a security scan. He insisted Brown put Rolin on the phone to confirm her story. Brown said Rolin, who is suffering mental decline, was unable to verify some details.

“He just handed me the phone and said, ‘Your stories don’t match,’ ” Brown recalled the agent saying. ” ‘We’re seizing the cash.’ “

Brown said she was never told she or her father were under suspicion of committing any crime and neither has been charged with anything. A search of her bag turned up no drugs or other contraband. Neither she or her father appear to have criminal records that might raise suspicions.

Brown and Rolin filed a federal, class-action lawsuit Wednesday against the DEA, Transportation Security Administration and agency officials, claiming the agencies violate the Constitution’s ban on unlawful search and seizures by taking cash from travelers without probable cause. The lawsuit claims the only criteria the DEA has for seizing cash is if it finds amounts greater than $5,000.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, seeks the return of Rolin’s money and an injunction against the practice.

Both the DEA and TSA declined to comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.

“We can’t comment on ongoing litigation,” said Katherine Pfaff, a DEA spokeswoman.

“As a matter of policy, TSA does not comment on pending litigation,” TSA spokeswoman Jenny Burke wrote in an email.

Brown said the loss of the savings has prevented Rolin from getting treatment for painful tooth decay and gum disease and kept the family from fixing up his pick-up truck, which is his only means of transportation. Rolin is living on retirement benefits from a job as a railroad engineer.

Brown said her grandparents kept their savings in cash because they lived through the bank runs of the Great Depression, and her father adopted the habit.

“I get they are trying to quash drug distribution, but this is a blatant overreach,” Brown said. “This is a working person, a taxpaying citizen of the United States trying to take care of her elderly parent, and they took the money.”

Dan Alban, a senior attorney for the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Brown and Rolin, said the family’s story is not unique.

“This is something that we know is happening all across the United States,” Alban said. “We’ve been contacted by people who have been traveling to buy used cars or buy equipment for their business and had their cash seized.”

The DEA made more than 8,850 seizures worth $539 million in 2017, according to the latest agency statistics for a full year. A 2016 USA Today investigation found DEA agents seized at least $209 million in cash from travelers at the nation’s 15 busiest airports over the previous decade.

Federal law gives the DEA and other law enforcement agencies power to seize cash and property linked to drug and criminal activity, a process known as civil asset forfeiture.

The agencies say it is an important tool to undermine the financial viability of criminal networks, deprive organizations of illicit proceeds and confiscate property like cars and houses that might be used to carry out or harbor crime.

But the practice has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Critics argue local police departments and federal agencies have used asset forfeiture as a cash cow to fatten budgets. In the DEA’s case, the agency feeds seized assets into a Justice Department fund that disburses the money to agencies and victims of crime.

A 2017 review by the Justice Department inspector general found only 44 of 100 seizures by the DEA were related to an ongoing investigation or resulted in a new investigation, arrest or prosecution. Most of the seizures occurred at transportation facilities like airports or bus stations.

The Supreme Court limited the power of local state agencies to seize property in an important ruling last year.

The DEA seized her father’s life savings at an airport without alleging any crime occurred, lawsuit says

Brown said she initially encountered issues when going through the TSA security checkpoint at Pittsburgh International Airport on Aug. 26. Brown was flying to Boston, where she lives outside the city.

A TSA screener noticed the cash in Brown’s carry-on during a scan and pulled her aside for questioning, Brown said. The screener asked what the money was for, photocopied her ID and travel documents and held her luggage until a Pennsylvania state trooper arrived. The lawsuit claims the TSA exceeded its authority in holding Brown’s bag.

Brown said she repeated the explanation that the money was her father’s life savings to the trooper and then retold it to his superior.

Finally, she said she was allowed to proceed to the gate, where she was met by the DEA agent.

Brown said it was humiliating to be questioned by the agent in front of other travelers at the gate. When he seized the money, she said he put it into a plastic bag and told her someone would be in touch with her.

Brown said she stumbled onto her flight in shock as the doors were closing. She didn’t have time to fully explain to her father what had happened before takeoff, and he left seven frantic messages while they were in flight. In October, she received a notice that the DEA planned to permanently seize the cash, citing its authority to make such moves to combat crime.

“I was shaking the entire time,” Brown said of the flight. “I was embarrassed. I was afraid.”

– – –

The Washington Post’s Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.

#7. To: misterwhite (#0)

My take: the Constitution is clear about unreasonable searches and seizures, about due process and about takings.

And what was done here and in many thousands of other cases clearly violates the plain language and intent of the Constitution.

So, then, why do the courts allow it? Because of the scourge of drugs and the difficulty of stopping the drug trade.

My answer would be: tough titty. We simply cannot have really effective drug enforcement, because the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right of privacy, and the due process required in takings all come together to prevent asset forfeiture. The right to be secure and not suffer this sort of takings means that yes, drug traffickers have the same rights of protection, and will get away with much more than they do (and they get away with plenty already). But that's not how the courts see it, so my read of the Constitution is not the law, and we have the takings as they are. Which sucks. So does cancer. Nothing I can do about that either.

Vicomte13  posted on  2020-01-17   15:42:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 7.

#10. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

So, then, why do the courts allow it? Because of the scourge of drugs and the difficulty of stopping the drug trade.

Because civil asset forfeiture goes back 400 years, way before "the scourge of drugs".

And since the property, not the owner, is charged with the crime, due process does not apply.

misterwhite  posted on  2020-01-17 16:24:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#7)

My take: the Constitution is clear about unreasonable searches and seizures, about due process and about takings.

And what was done here and in many thousands of other cases clearly violates the plain language and intent of the Constitution.

So, then, why do the courts allow it? Because of the scourge of drugs and the difficulty of stopping the drug trade.

My answer would be: tough titty. We simply cannot have really effective drug enforcement, because the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right of privacy, and the due process required in takings all come together to prevent asset forfeiture. The right to be secure and not suffer this sort of takings means that yes, drug traffickers have the same rights of protection, and will get away with much more than they do (and they get away with plenty already). But that's not how the courts see it, so my read of the Constitution is not the law, and we have the takings as they are. Which sucks. So does cancer. Nothing I can do about that either.

- - - - - - - - - -

It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.

—Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989.

The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes ...

—Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007

The seminal SCOTUS case of Austin v. United States speaks to the history of civil asset forfeiture which predates the Founding back to 17th century English law.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep509602/

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)

AUSTIN v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 92-6073. Argued April 20, 1993-Decided June 28, 1993

After a state court sentenced petitioner Austin on his guilty plea to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute iKn violation of South Dakota law, the United States filed an in rem action in Federal District Court against his mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U. S. C. §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7), which provide for the forfeitare of, respectively, vehicles and real property used, or intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of certain drug-related crimes. In granting the Government summary judgment on the basis of an officer's affidavit that Austin had brought two grams of cocaine from the mobile home to the body shop in order to consummate a prearranged sale there, the court rejected Austin's argument that forfeiture of his properties would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the Government that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to in rem civil forfeitures.

Held:

1. Forfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Pp. 606-622.

(a) The determinative question is not, as the Government would have it, whether forfeiture under §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal. The Eighth Amendment's text is not expressly limited to criminal cases, and its history does not require such a limitation. Rather, the crucial question is whether the forfeiture is monetary punishment, with which the Excessive Fines Clause is particularly concerned. Because sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose, the fact that a forfeiture serves remedial goals will not exclude it from the Clause's purview, so long as it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. See United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 448. Thus, consideration must be given to whether, at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, forfeiture was understood at least in part as punishment and whether forfeiture under §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7) should be so understood today. Pp. 606-611.

(b) A review of English and American law before, at the time of, and following the ratification of the Eighth Amendment demonstrates that forfeiture generally, and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular, historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment. See, e. g., Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch 347, 364. The same understanding runs through this Court's cases rejecting the "innocence" of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture. See, e. g., Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 683, 686, 687. Pp. 611-618.

(c) Forfeitures under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) are properly considered punishment today, since nothing in these provisions contradicts the historical understanding, since both sections clearly focus on the owner's culpability by expressly providing "innocent owner" defenses and by tying forfeiture directly to the commission of drug offenses, and since the legislative history confirms that Congress understood the provisions as serving to deter and to punish. Thus, even assuming that the sections serve some remedial purpose, it cannot be concluded that forfeiture under the sections serves only that purpose. Pp. 619-622.

2. The Court declines to establish a test for determining whether a forfeiture is constitutionally "excessive," since prudence dictates that the lower courts be allowed to consider that question in the first instance. Pp. 622-623.

964 F. 2d 814, reversed and remanded.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 623. KENNEDY, J., fied an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 628.

Opinion of the Court at 609-610:

After deciding to confine the benefits of the Self- Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to criminal proceedings, the Framers turned their attention to the Eighth Amendment. There were no proposals to limit that Amendment to criminal proceedings...." 492 U. S., at 294. Section 10 of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is not expressly limited to criminal cases either. The original draft of § 10 as introduced in the House of Commons did contain such a restriction, but only with respect to the bail clause:

"The requiring excessive Bail of Persons committed in criminal Cases, and imposing excessive Fines, and illegal Punishments, to be prevented." 10 H. C. Jour. 17 (1688). The absence of any similar restriction in the other two clauses suggests that they were not limited to criminal cases. In the final version, even the reference to criminal cases in the bail clause was omitted. See 1 W. & M., 2d Sess., ch. 2, 3 Stat. at Large 441 (1689) ("That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted"); see also L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 88 (1981) ("But article 10 contains no reference to 'criminal cases' and, thus, would seem to apply.., to all cases").5

The purpose of the Eighth Amendment, putting the Bail Clause to one side, was to limit the government's power to punish. See Browning-Ferris, 492 U. S., at 266-267, 275. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is self-evidently concerned with punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, "as punishment for some offense." Id., at 265 (emphasis added). "The notion of punishment, as we commonly understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law." United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 447-448 (1989). "It is commonly understood that civil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties." Id., at 447. See also United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 554 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Thus, the question is not, as the United States would have it, whether fbrfeiture under §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.6

5 In Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977), we concluded that the omission of any reference to criminal cases in § 10 was without substantive significance in light of the preservation of a similar reference to criminal cases in the preamble to the English Bill of Rights. Id., at 665. This reference in the preamble, however, related only to excessive bail. See 1 W. & M., 2d Sess., ch. 2, 3 Stat. at Large 440 (1689). Moreover, the preamble appears designed to catalog the misdeeds of James II, see ibid., rather than to define the scope of the substantive rights set out in subsequent sections.

6 For this reason, the United States' reliance on Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez and United States v. Ward is misplaced. The question in those cases was whether a nominally civil penalty should be reclassified as criminal and the safeguards that attend a criminal prosecution should be required. See Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S., at 167, 184; Ward, 448 U. S., at 248. In addressing the separate question whether punishment is being imposed, the Court has not employed the tests articulated in Mendoza-Martinez and Ward. See, e. g., United States v. Halper, 490 U. S., at 447. Since in this case we deal only with the question whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies, we need not address the application of those tests.

SCALIA dissenting at 509 U.S. 624-625:

In order to constitute a fine under the Eighth Amendment, however, the forfeiture must constitute "punishment," and it is a much closer question whether statutory in rem forfeitures, as opposed to in personam forfeitures, meet this requirement. The latter are assessments, whether monetary or in kind, to punish the property owner's criminal conduct, while the former are confiscations of property rights based on improper use of the property, regardless of whether the owner has violated the law. Statutory in rem forfeitures have a long history. See generally Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 680-686 (1.974). The property to which they apply is not contraband, see the forfeiture Act passed by the First Congress, ante, at 613-614, nor is it necessarily property that can only be used for illegal purposes. The theory of in rem forfeiture is said to be that the lawful property has committed an offense. See, e. g., The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 14-15 (1827) (forfeiture of vessel for piracy); Harmony v. United States, 2 How. 210, 233-234 (1844) (forfeiture of vessel, but not cargo, for piracy); Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U. S. 395, 400-403 (1878) (forfeiture of distillery and real property for evasion of revenue laws); J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505, 510-511 (1921) (forfeiture of goods concealed to avoid taxes).

However the theory may be expressed, it seems to me that this taking of lawful property must be considered, in whole or in part, see United States v. Halper,490 U. S. 435, 448 (1989), punitive.*

* Thus, contrary to the Court's contention, ante, at 618-619, n. 12, I agree with it on this point. I do not agree, however, that culpability of the property owner is necessary to establish punitiveness, or that punitiveness "in part" is established by showing that at least in some cases the affected property owners are culpable. That is to say, the statutory forfeiture must always be at least "partly punitive," or else it is not a fine. See ante, at 622, n. 14.

Justice KENNEDY concurring at 509 U.S. 624-625, 629:

At some point, we may have to confront the constitutional question whether forfeiture is permitted when the owner has committed no wrong of any sort, intentional or negligent. That for me would raise a serious question. Though the history of forfeiture laws might not be determinative of that issue, it would have an important bearing on the outcome. I would reserve for that or some other necessary occasion the inquiry the Court undertakes here. Unlike JUSTICE SCALIA, see ante, at 625, I would also reserve the question whether in rem forfeitures always amount to an intended punishment of the owner of forfeited property.

nolu chan  posted on  2020-01-17 17:59:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#7)

My take: the Constitution is clear about unreasonable searches and seizures, about due process and about takings.

The Constitution is clear that warrants can only be issued upon probable cause to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution is silent about what is, or is not, a reasonable search or seizure.

All that is needed to justify a warrant is probable cause. Not all searches or seizures require any warrant. The legislature and the courts have carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement.

As an extreme example, during an inspection or examination at a point of entry, no warrant is required to search or seize.

Forfeiture is an issue which may follow seizure.

nolu chan  posted on  2020-01-18 20:27:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com