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.