This Week’s Civil Forfeiture Outrage (Twelfth in a Series: Love Field Update)
A few months ago, I blogged about the curious case of a currency seizure at Dallas Love Field. In December, the Dallas Police Department (DPD) seized more than $100,000 in currency from a traveler journeying to Chicago, apparently after a drug-sniffing dog sensed the smell of marijuana from her suitcase. As I wrote then, there were lots of questions about this incident that journalists should be asking:
Why is the dog being praised—and what exactly did the dog accomplish? Why was this money taken from this woman? If the Dallas Police Department thought she was committing a crime, why wasn’t she arrested? If they didn’t think she was committing a crime, why was her money confiscated? When police confiscate cash on the theory that there’s been some kind of wrongdoing, do they need to have some kind of evidence of wrongdoing beyond the mere existence of the cash?
When I emailed a DPD spokesperson a few questions about this incident, I received a brief and cryptic email back. The spokesperson responded that “there is more to this story,” but that she couldn’t say anything else. Perhaps because of DPD’s stonewalling and innuendo, CBS Channel 21 then filed a records request to get more details. What they found, as far as I can tell, isn’t helpful to the police.
The documents released by DPD identify the woman that the cash was seized from and label her a “suspect”—even though she was never detained or charged with a crime. The DPD’s report describes its investigation, and it concludes that the money might be related to drug trafficking for the following reasons:
The dog alerted to drug odors; indeed, the detective who opened the bag reported “smelling the odor of marijuana.” There was no marijuana in the bag, though, just cash.
The “suspect” looked around when interviewed, and her statements were sometimes hesitant and inaccurate.
The report notes that when the woman was asked if she was carrying cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin, she stated, “No.” But when she was asked about marijuana, police noted she hesitated and her eyes darted to the left when she again answered, “No.” Police then asked if she was carrying large sums of cash; again, she hesitated, her eyes darted to the left, and answered, “No.” The woman then said she had about $20,000 inside of the luggage along with clothing.
Furthermore, she inaccurately described the suitcase as gray (in fact, it was black) and the lock on the suitcase as moveable (in fact, it was attached to the suitcase).
(In fairness, these justifications are an improvement to the DPD’s original explanation for the seizure. When the money was originally seized, DPD announced that “travelers are not allowed to board a plane with more than $10,000 of cash without declaring it, even on domestic flights.” That claim is pure fiction.)
If, after reading the above, your reaction is that “something’s fishy about this woman carrying all this cash around,” I’m inclined to agree. But, as Reason’s Joe Lancaster noted, what these facts highlight is the distinct absence of a crime. Fishiness isn’t illegal. It isn’t illegal to carry cash. It isn’t illegal to possess a suitcase that smells of marijuana (possession of marijuana happens to be legal in the “suspect’s” destination, Illinois). It isn’t illegal to be nervous when interrogated by police, even if nervousness causes your eyes to dart around. It isn’t even illegal to inaccurately describe the personal property you’re carrying.
Of course, even if this woman’s choices weren’t illegal, they appear quite inadvisable. More precisely, actions like these can generate suspicion from law enforcement officers. That’s why concepts like “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” are so important in criminal justice— enough suspicious behavior allows law enforcement officers to detain and arrest people.
Any justice system has to have rules that determine the circumstances in which the cops are allowed to detain citizens. In the last few decades, we’ve imported the rules of civil asset seizure into the criminal justice system. But this blended civil and criminal system has produced outcomes where the alleged suspect is never arrested, never booked, never charged, and never tried. The seizure serves as the trial.: It’s often the only justice that a “suspect” is going to get.
That’s a general rule, even though it may not be true in the Love Field case. At some point, it’s certainly possible that a lawyer for the “suspect” will file suit in an attempt to get the $100,000 back. But in most cases, victims of seizure cannot and will not pursue the recovery of their own property. If a victim of civil asset seizure has lost, say, $1,000 in cash to the authorities, he or she is certainly entitled to consult with a lawyer. If the lawyer tells the victim that it’s going to cost $2,500 in legal fees to get the money back, the victim would have to be crazy to follow through with the lawsuit. That’s a central reason why about 80 percent of civil asset seizure cases are never litigated. Even though the victim has the formal right to show up in court and pursue recovery, it makes no sense for him or her to throw good money after bad by hiring a lawyer. In short, the victim of seizure typically has very good reason just to eat the loss.
Some aspects of the Dallas Love Field civil seizure are atypical. When currency is involved, the typical civil seizure involves a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. It’s atypical that someone would just walk away from $100,000 without trying to figure out how to get it back. What is typical about the Love Field seizure, though, is its injustice.
Related:
MI Prosecutor Quits Over Forfeiture Fund Charges | Another State Ends Civil Asset Forfeiture! | Civil asset forfeiture: I’m a grandmother, not a drug lord. Why can police take my property? | This Week’s Civil Forfeiture Outrages: Do People Facing Forfeiture Get Due Process? | Modular Data Centers: Legal and Regulatory Challenges | Preparing for AI-Powered Regulatory Audits: Data Centers & Automated Compliance Checks | Civil Forfeiture: Part Two | Leveraging Insurance Options for Data Center Liability Coverage | Libertarian Comes Close To Understanding Civil Asset Forfeiture | Two Celebrities Charged With Unlawfully Touting Coin Offerings | Network Edge & Micro Data Centers: Emerging Legal Challenges | Who’s winning from asset seizures? | The Evolving Landscape of Data Center Real Estate | Innocent People Fall Victim to Civil Forfeiture | Data Center Cost Optimization Strategies: Balancing OPEX, CAPEX, and Performance | The feds are helping local police make money by taking your stuff again | Data Center Site Selection: 5 Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them | Digital Tyranny: Beware of the Government’s Push for a Digital Currency | Ninth Circuit: Government Cannot Seize Cash Based Solely on Money’s Intended Use | Asset Forfeiture is Theft: An Overview of the State and Federal Programs | Civil Forfeiture | New Jersey Tightens Reins on Civil Asset Forfeiture | <a href="https://seb…
Related:
Administrative Forfeiture Defense Strategies | How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government’s Asset Forfeiture Program | Lawless Law Enforcement: Asset Forfeiture Fuels Police Spending | Watch Cops Seize Combat Vet’s Life Savings [RARE FOOTAGE] | Walberg Champions Amendment to Rein in Civil Forfeiture Abuse | Lynchburg CA Mike Doucette on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform | Michigan Man Cleared of Wrongdoing, Still Fighting Civil Forfeiture Years Later | Michigan Enacts Civil Asset Forfeiture Reforms | How the government can steal your stuff: 6 questions about civil asset forfeiture answered | Michigan Bans The Cops From Seizing Your Property Without Conviction | Washington State: SB 5044- Civil Asset Forfeiture | Asset Forfeiture Defense Strategies for Farms & Land | The FBI Seized Almost $1 Million From This Family—and Never Charged Them With a Crime | Alabama Shows How Law Enforcement Can Get Behind Asset Forfeiture Reform | Condo board looks to evict buyer of heavily discounted 1MDB penthouse | Protecting Property Rights from Civil Asset Forfeiture | What do Toyota and Madoff have in common? | Op-Ed: State seizure of private property – How civil asset forfeiture has run amok in Louisiana | Cops Seize Almost $150,000 from Black Musician for Not Using His Turn Signal | Top Strategies for Business Legal Compliance | Guy describes the living nightmare of the US government trying to seize his family’s motel | In Landmark Civil Asset Forfeiture Case, U.S. Supreme Court Holds Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment Applicable to States | Maritime Asset Forfeiture Defense Strategies | Should the Supreme Court Take Action to Limit Civil Asset Forfeiture?
