TexasCHLforum.com

Likely more laws are needed... Apparently the DEA was paying TSA agents to "tip" them to cash coming through luggage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea ... 5553c266ea

Someone has to help pay for the War on Drugs.

Here's a recent one:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crim ... top/nmDrH/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As near as I can tell, he had a criminal history, violated traffic laws, and a drug dog alerted to the money... Apparently that's enough. Perhaps he is a bad guy with drug money, but it seems that it's totally up to the PD to determine when they get to take money.

And another one outside of Texas:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4607.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As near as I can see, pretty much this exact case has been ruled as "not allowed" for forfeiture, but it's still happening:
http://www.ndsn.org/dec94/dog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

""If greater than seventy-five percent of all circulated currency in Los Angeles is contaminated with drug residue, it is extremely likely a narcotics detection dog will positively alert when presented with a large sum of currency from that area," the court said."

Scary stuff.. Don't carry cash.

XinTX wrote: And they count on that. Say for example they seize $100,000. You're acquitted and not convicted of anything. Then you have to file suit to recover your own money.

Yea, that's the punitive enforcement method of law enforcement. I don't like you so I'm going to make your life difficult. It's why being a LEO is probably one of the most powerful jobs you can get, especially when facing members of the public who are young or not able to afford representation. IE - I know this won't stick, but we'll tow the car, make you bond out at a minimum. And for some people - where the "clean" record is associated with employment, just the record of the arrest has the potential to hurt to the tune of hundreds of thousands over a lifetime - even if "not guilty" via lost opportunities.

And you're right. It's very likely that an attorney might quote me $20k to take a seizure case - and he might say "starts at $20k" - may take years versus a settlement offer of the same net amount today. I guess the other way to deal with this stuff is to add punitive damages to an unjustified seizure - say 100-300% of the value of the property that was seized. That might balance the scales a bit...

Dave2 wrote: Speaking of which I'm kinda curious about the legal justification for it working any other way... I mean if the government's premise is that they can seize the assets of criminals because <reasons>, they can't continue to use the same justifications once they've failed to prove you're a criminal. Wouldn't laws that state otherwise be a violation of the 4th amendment?

It's a "burden" thing. I'll provide an example:
I own an easement to the lake. My neighbor, who owns the property, gated and locked the easement so I couldn't use it any longer. I consulted an attorney. I was given two pieces of advice:
1) I could fund the lawsuit and the eventual goal would be an injunction of some type against blocking the easement and if I was lucky, maybe cover my legal fees.
2) I could go out there and cut the lock off the gate. If the neighbor wanted to sue me for cutting the lock, he could.

In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.

IT's leverage, if nothing else. If I'm on the way to buy a tractor and I'm stopped, I don't want to worry about the cash disappearing... Having it happen once would be enough for me.

I'm just sorry that this legislation is necessary.