Crosstalk: The case against civil forfeiture

A retired Albanian policeman, Kazazi had been selected in 2005 through the visa lottery to enter the U.S. and he became a citizen in 2010. Due to concerns about the integrity and safety of 12 years of savings in weak local banks in Albania, he decided to travel with cash. Kazazi arranged his personal treasure in three separate bundles along with bank receipts documenting withdrawals and records pertaining to his property in Tirana, the capital city.

At the Ohio airport, however, officials refused Kazazi access to an interpreter and denied him the ability to contact his family for help. They physically searched him extensively, finding no drugs, no contraband and no connection to an alleged or actual crime. His “crime” was to have a large amount of legal currency on his person as he legally traveled.

After the interrogation, Kazazi was given a receipt for “U.S. Currency” with no dollar amount recorded. Now, more than seven months later, the savings of this family are still being held with only a notice of seizure declaring, “Enforcement activity indicates that the currency was involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation.” No formal charges. No court date. No evidence. Instead, the Kazazi family has had to resort to a lawsuit to have their money returned.

There have long been issues surrounding seizure of property, which seems to come with an increased power and militarization of police agencies throughout the country.

America has forgotten that behaving “suspiciously” is not a crime, something we notice almost every day in the police reports here in The Dalles.

Every day, calls come in that someone is behaving suspiciously: A man is sitting on a retaining wall despite the big “neighborhood watch” sign across the street (I’ve been called in for that); he is walking down the street, constantly looking over his shoulder (I’ve been called in for that as well); or he carried his screaming toddler back to the car and drove away (I’ve been called in for that, too).

I’ve never had my vehicle seized, but I was once spread-eagled and patted down because: A float tube had deflated and draped itself over the back license plate; I was driving a van; and I was wearing a loose shirt, The officer said it was all related to officer safety, which is acceptable.

I should add that I was young, too, which is suspicious in and of itself.

Suspicion is not guilt, however. I’ve never been arrested, suspicious though I may be.

Yet suspicion was enough for Kazazi to lose his money.

Meanwhile, current U.S. Attorney General Sessions has issued a memorandum suggesting that “asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement de-fund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and weakens the criminals and the cartels. Even more importantly, it helps return property to the victims of crime.”

It sounds good, but its hard to resist seizing a man’s assets, especially if he has a lot of them, and suspicion should not be reason enough.

That the administration would strengthen forfeiture laws is no surprise: But what might surprise some of my readers is that I was unaware of Sessions’ statement until RaeLynn told me about it, saying “If you want to bash the Republicans...”

Democrat or Republican, free money is the hallmark of both parties.

It appears abuse of power is one bipartisan issue both parties agree on with enthusiasm.

— Mark Gibson

Crime may not pay, but policing can be very profitable when law enforcement agencies are allowed to seize assets not only from criminals, but also from people merely suspected of breaking the law.

Civil forfeiture is the police state in action because citizens do not even need to be arrested or convicted of a crime to have their cash, cars or even real estate seized by the government.

Since 1984, a federal statute, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, has permitted law enforcement agencies to retain profits from seized property for their own use.

In 1985, one year after that act was approved, the U.S. Department of Justice collected $27 million, That number had jumped to $28 billion by 2016. The last figure is based solely on a 100-case sample so the overall seizures are probably much higher.

Think it couldn’t happen to you? Think again. If you own property that could be stolen and then used in some type of criminal activity, you could lose it. If you are stopped and searched for some reason and possess a large amount of cash, your money can be taken and held for an administrative review to determine if, indeed, it was lawfully obtained or possessed.

That is because the property itself is “prosecuted” for having been used in a crime or obtained from the proceeds of illicit acts, and the owner has to prove the property is innocent.

The Rustem Kazazi situation referred to by Mark is only one of many egregious forfeitures. Take the case of the Hirsch brothers of Long Island who own a small business that distributes candy, snacks and other goods to area convenience stores.

In 2012, the federal goernment decided they were violating federal banking law by the way way they made deposits. So, IRS agents raided their bank account and seized $446,000. Three years later, the government dropped its case against Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch and returned their assets. However, for that to happen, the brothers had to agree to pay their own legal fees and clear the feds of any wrongdoing.

Even though the brothers were never charged with a crime, much less convicted, their business was put in jeopardy and they had to absorb tens of thousands in legal bills.

Another example of this constitutionally dubious tactic is the 2015 seizure of Gerardo Serrano’s Ford F-250 pickup truck.

Serrano had driven up to the Eagle Pass, Texas, border crossing, intending to try to talk a Mexican cousin into expanding his solar panel installation business into the United States. While he was taking photos of the border with his cellphone, two U.S. Custom and Border Protection agents demanded Serrano’s password.

He refused to submit to the unwarranted invasion of his privacy and was reportedly told by one of the agents, “You have no rights here.” When a search of his truck revealed five .380 caliber bullets in the center console — he had a concealed-carry permit but had no weapon with him — they handcuffed Serrano and seized his truck, saying it had been used to transport “munitions of war.”

After two years of stonewalling, Serrano’s vehicle was returned. Even though he had been without it, Serrano had paid the $672 monthly payments and kept it insured and registered. He also had to pay for rental cars and was extorted by the government into paying a bond that was 10 percent of the truck’s value ($3,804.99).

Serrano is suing for restitution and is also seeking a class-action judgement on behalf of others who have been similarly mistreated.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is wrong to expand the practice of civil forfeiture. He is using the never-ending war on drugs as his rationale for more seizures. That flies in the face of civil forfeiture reform laws that have found three states — North Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada —banning the practice altogether.

Civil forfeiture mocks due process afforded citizens under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constutition, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It is an egregious violation.

— RaeLynn Ricarte