Man Loses $160,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

by Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - NewsChannel 5 has uncovered a brand new "policing for profit" case -- a case that resulted in a New York man losing a $160,000 on a Tennessee interstate. Even more startling, critics said, the case exposes a major loophole around a new law that's supposed to crack down on such abuses.

Police video, obtained by NewsChannel 5 Investigates, shows how an Indian-American businessman from New York lost the cash during a December 2011 traffic stop along I-40 in Dickson County. It's money that authorities would eventually be forced to return -- more than a year later. "It does show that the government did not have a very strong case," said Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the conservative-leaning Institute for Justice. Her organization has called such practices "highway robbery."

The cash was seized by an interdiction officer from the 23rd Judicial District Drug Task Force. The agency gets its funding by seizing cash -- usually from out-of-state drivers, often minorities -- when officers have suspicions that it might be drug money. But in this case, instead of using state seizure laws, the agent from the 23rd took the cash to the feds, tying up the businessman's money in the federal courts.

"It's a very formal and, I think, burdensome process," said Peter Strianse, a former federal prosecutor. Federal agencies have 90 days to file a forfeiture action after money is taken, the property owner has 30 days to file a claim, then the U.S. Attorney's Office has another 90 days to file a formal lawsuit. That then begins a whole series of back-and-forth court filings.

Strianse said that he often hears from people who've had $10,000 or more seized through federal forfeiture laws -- and he has to tell them to kiss their money goodbye. "It becomes just a real losing proposition," he said. "You are going to spend three times that amount of money to try to get the $10,000 back that was taken from you."

"So why bother?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked. "You are right a lot of people just don't bother," he answered.

In this case, the New York businessman who was in the passenger seat did not want to admit how much cash he was carrying -- although his driver did tell the officer that they were headed to Memphis to try to buy a convenience store.

"Looking for some work, business here," the driver said. "What kind of business do you have?" the agent asked.

"Grocery." "You do groceries?" "Convenience stores, yes." Those statements never showed up in the officer's report.

Instead, he noted that a background check revealed that the businessman had previously been "investigated for suspicious currency smuggling." The key word, says Darpana Sheth, is "investigated." "They weren't convicted, certainly," she noted. "They weren't even charged. It was merely an investigation."

After convincing the men into consenting to a search, the officer immediately found the cash in a plastic bag in the back seat. "Hey, what's all this?" the officer demanded. "What's all this money? You said you didn't have any large amounts of money in the vehicle. Turn around for me, ok? Put your hands behind your back. " That's when his tone became much more adversarial.

"Guys, something's not right. You all are not telling me the truth." Strianse noted that there's nothing wrong about not telling an officer exactly how much cash you are carrying. "You would have an absolute right not to answer any of the questions put to you by one of these interdiction officers," he added. In fact, on the video, the drug interdiction agent seemed to admit to another officer that he really doesn't have much of a drug case. "I don't know honestly if we can, if we can't link it to drugs, it's still a currency violation," he said.

Still, DA Dan Alsobrooks, who oversees the task force, told NewsChannel 5 that the real responsibility lies with the feds -- in this case, the Drug Enforcement Administration -- who agreed to file the forfeiture action. "All the DTF did was cooperate with the federal authorities after the traffic stop," Alsobrooks said in an email, adding: "No seizure would have been made at the state level."

And, critics said, that shows why just reforming state laws may not be enough. "State and local law enforcement can easily subvert those reform efforts by simply referring forfeitures to the federal government," Darpana Sheth said. "It's a very big loophole." Part of the delay in this case was to give the businessman extra time to compile financial records so he could prove the money was legit.

The case was finally closed after the U.S. Attorney's Office asked the man's attorney to propose a settlement to make the case go away. He offered $5,000 -- and the government took the deal -- giving the man $155,000 back.

Under federal rules, the local agency that seized the money gets 80 percent, while the feds keep 20 percent. That means the 23rd Drug Task Force still made $4,000 dollars off the traffic stop.

As for Peter Strianse, he had one case involving even more money. Agents from the 21st Judicial District, also working I-40, took $275,000 in 2007 off of an African man who had come to America to buy bulldozers. He eventually got every penny back -- but it took three years. "And the man ended up getting sued in Africa and almost lost his home," the attorney said. "Most people would think that's pretty unfair." we noted. "Yeah," he answered, "it really was."

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22082108/man-loses-160000-in-n%C2%ADew-policing-for-profit-case

[SMR 368]

Help me out here. Is carrying large amounts of cash illegal? What's the limit? Or is it just if they think it's drug money? Even if they do think it's drug money, isn't the burden of proof still on the state?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Help me out here. Is carrying large amounts of cash illegal? What's the limit? Or is it just if they think it's drug money? Even if they do think it's drug money, isn't the burden of proof still on the state?

large amounts appears to be whatever the police think it is. and the burden apparently lies on the citizen as the police took the money.

[Karee 4,190]

Help me out here. Is carrying large amounts of cash illegal? What's the limit? Or is it just if they think it's drug money? Even if they do think it's drug money, isn't the burden of proof still on the state?

This seems to happen alot. One recent case is a county commissioner here in Dallas County:

Seizure of John Wiley Price’s assets will await outcome of criminal case

By KEVIN KRAUSE

Staff Writer

kkrause@dallasnews.com

Published: 22 April 2013 10:54 PM

Updated: 22 April 2013 10:54 PM

The question of what will happen to more than $460,000 seized by federal agents from Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price will have to wait until the conclusion of the criminal investigation into his activities.

U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater granted a joint motion to stay the government’s civil forfeiture case against Price over a week ago. It was unsealed Monday.

The government was trying to win a default judgment against Price in order to keep the money federal agents seized from him, arguing he missed key deadlines to fight the forfeiture. But Fitzwater ruled in February that Price could continue to file motions in the case.

Price, his top assistant, Dapheny Fain, and others are the targets of a public corruption investigation by the FBI and other federal law enforcement officials. The U.S. attorney’s office has accused Price in court documents of money laundering, bankruptcy fraud and bribery.

Price and Fain have denied any wrongdoing and no charges have been filed as a result of that investigation, which became public almost two years ago when agents searched Price’s home and several other places.

Billy Ravkind, Price’s attorney, could not be reached for comment.

Tom Mills, Fain’s attorney, said that if the forfeiture case continued, FBI agents could have been questioned under oath as part of the evidence collection phase. Price and Fain also could have been compelled to testify or invoke the Fifth, he said.

Mills said he has no idea when or if an indictment will be handed down.

“They’ve been investigating the case for so long I don’t really know what they’re doing,” he said.

Agents seized almost $230,000 from a safe in Price’s home in June 2011. They also seized just over $230,000 in proceeds from property Price sold to a Dallas-area developer.

Price has claimed ownership of $115,000 found in the safe as well as the money from the land sale. Fain has claimed the remaining money found in the safe.

The U.S. attorney’s office filed the civil forfeiture suit last year in an attempt to keep that money, saying it is the proceeds of crimes. Price and Fain say the money came from legitimate business dealings.

Source:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130422-seizure-of-john-wiley-prices-assets-will-await-outcome-of-criminal-case.ece

Edited May 15, 2013 by Karee

[SMR 368]

This clearly violates parts of the 5th and 6th amendments. No one can be deprived of property without due process of law. And the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial. In order for the money to be taken, the party in question must be accused and convicted of a crime and that must be done speedily.

And reasonably, the money aught to be placed in an interest bearing account during said speedy trial so that the defendant, if found not guilty, can receive his or her property with interest. Moreover, if the money is found to be the profits of a crime, it aught to be used to make restitution to the victims of those crimes to the extent possible. Even if specific victims of those crimes cannot be identified or located, victims of fraud are numerous and drug addicts needing to pay for rehab shouldn't be hard to find. If the government stands to benefit by a guilty verdict a clear conflict of interest is in play.

[TBoneTX 45,267]

After convincing the men into consenting to a search

NEVER consent. NEVER consent.

Edited May 18, 2013 by TBoneTX