 
A U.S. Drug Enforcement Agent stands guard at the DEA Headquarters in Miami in Hialeah, Fla. (AP Photo/Bill Cooke)
 
Both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution prevent the seizure of property without the due process of 
law. 
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place 
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Article Six of the Bill of Rights of the United Police States of America
August 15, 2016
The Daily Signal - Well-meaning
 laws designed to nab high-level criminals have been twisted to siphon 
off money from law-abiding American citizens. The latest abuse of civil 
asset forfeiture laws involves air and rail travelers being targeted and
 fleeced by a federal agency.
The Drug Enforcement Administration 
is pulling Americans’ travel data en masse from airline and Amtrak 
records, profiling individuals with “suspicious” travel habits, and 
targeting them for searches as part of the nation’s drug interdiction 
efforts. But, according to a 
damning article last week in USA Today,
 the goal of this massive operation is neither to confiscate drugs nor 
to make arrests–it’s to seize and forfeit cash via civil asset 
forfeiture laws.
Seize, they have. Over ten years, DEA agents 
deployed at 15 airports across the country have brought in $209 million 
in alleged drug funds, money that the DEA and its local agency partners 
spent with little oversight or accountability. But while agents 
generated a mountain of cash, they produced hardly any arrests, 
indictments, or convictions.
Such is the power of civil forfeiture
 laws, which enable the seizure of property and currency suspected of 
being connected with a criminal act, to distort the priorities of law 
enforcement towards the seizure of property at the expense of other 
traditional, and critical, law enforcement functions.
There are documented instances where local and state agents allow drugs to enter America’s cities so that they can then 
seize the money generated from drug sales. In other cases (
such as this one captured on dashboard footage),
 drug task force agents refused to arrest or even question truck drivers
 smuggling half a million dollars in suspected drug money. All they 
wanted was the cash.
Last week’s 
USA Today article makes 
clear that some federal law enforcement officials are equally 
susceptible to the pressures of forfeiture’s perverse profit incentives 
as some state law enforcement officers have been in the past.
Over
 a span of ten years, DEA agents at 15 of the nation’s largest and 
busiest airports–including local law enforcement officers deputized as 
DEA agents–targeted individuals whose travel patterns were deemed 
“suspicious.” Something as innocuous as same-day round trip airfare, 
one-way airfare, paying cash for tickets, and checking a bag qualify as 
“suspicious” behavior.
Armed with a traveler’s flight information,
 DEA agents would then intercept him at the gate, inquire as to his 
travel plans, and, if he did not consent to a search, use drug-sniffing 
dogs to inspect his luggage.
The officers would deem a dog’s 
“alert” sufficient to justify searching the person’s luggage. Any cash 
found would then be seized as “drug money,” even if authorities found no
 drugs or testable amounts of drug residue. That is what happened to 
24-year-old 
Charles Clarke, who had $11,000 seized at the Cincinnati airport in 2013. He is still fighting the forfeiture.
Another man, a nail salon owner named Vu Do, had 
$44,000 seized by DEA agents
 at JFK airport in New York, despite the lack of any apparent evidence 
tying the money to any crime. He attempted to challenge the seizure, but
 because his challenge was filed late, his cash was forfeited 
automatically in a process known as “administrative forfeiture.”
One
 might wonder what becomes of the suspected criminals whose alleged drug
 proceeds have just been seized. In most cases, they go free. In the 
world of civil forfeiture, no criminal charges are necessary, and the 
DEA seemed to be entirely uninterested in building criminal cases 
against the vast majority of the property owners whose money was seized.