Civil asset forfeiture- stealing made legal needs stopped in Pa

Civil+asset+forfeiture-+stealing+made+legal+needs+stopped+in+Pa

$82,375. That’s how much Terry Rolin, a retired railroad engineer living in South Fayette, PA had saved throughout his life. It was stacked away in a Tupperware container inside Rebecca Brown- his daughter’s bag. 

The great depression caused Rolin’s parents to not trust banks; he followed this way of life and opted to hide his money in his home. As he got older and retired to a new apartment, he became more trusting of banks and asked Rachel to set one up for him. Rachel was flying back to her  Boston home because Rachel had power of attorney, and we live in the age of online banking. The only minor hurdle was figuring out if she could transport that much money over state lines via airplane. 

A quick Google search revealed that there’s actually no limit to how much money you’re able to bring. Sure, she might get questioned, but she had answers and nothing to hide. TSA spotted the lump sum and alerted the DEA and Pennsylvania State Troopers at Pittsburgh International Airport. Just like that, all $82,375 was seized. A few months later she received a notice that because the DEA is so committed to preventing crime, they planned to permanently keep the cash. Ultimately, Rollin finally got his money back, making him an exception and not the rule, many will never get their property back. Additionally, it’s very unlikely they will be able to sue or that this will cause any major change.

How can this be? After all, it sounds like a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of the government taking  property without just compensation, and the Fourteenth amendment’s right to due process. What is known as civil asset forfeiture goes back to Privateers (government pirates), King Ferfdinand VII of Spain in 1827 and more recently, a cheating husband from Michigan. 

Tina and John Bennis, a married couple, now divorced, were living in Detroit, Michigan in 1988. John didn’t come home at the usual time one night and Tina became increasingly concerned. So, she called the cops, just to find out John was arrested for solicitation. 

The troubles John caused do not end there. t just so happens John was caught engaging in illegal activity inside their shared, both in use and financially, 1977 Pontiac. 

Civil forfeiture, a practice that allows cops and other government agents to permanently steal the property of criminal suspects (key word- suspects) regardless of what happens in criminal court. This ‘77 Poniac was now alleged to be guilty of solicitation as well. The county moved to forfeit ownership of the car from the Bemmis’s to the state. Tina now finds herself in the predicament of having an illegally cheating husband and no car. 

Civil forfeiture allows police to take property believed to have been used in the crime when somebody is arrested and having that property’s ownership transferred to the state through civil court regardless of what goes on in the criminal case. Although the person whose property was taken has to be alerted about this preceding, many times they don’t know they can come to court or are unable to show up. Missing even one court date could result in losing property for good. None are provided with a lawyer, which is very concerning given this scheme targets low income individuals. 

How civil forfeiture works is different in every state. Generally speaking there are three types of property that can be forfeited: instrumentalities, contraband and proceeds.

Instrumentality is property that contributed directly in order to further criminal activity like a getaway car used in a bank robbery.    

Contraband are things that are simply illegal just as they are. For instance, cocaine.

Proceeds would be something Like the profits from an illegal jaguar sale.  

In Tina’s case, their car was taken from them because without her knowledge, John made the car an instrumentality. Tina wants to fight back by asserting an innocent owner defense which would declare she owns a piece of property that was seized. Because she was a completely innocent party, therefore she should still have ownership of the vehicle. However, Michigan, like a lot of states still to this day, does not allow people to take this innocent owner’s defense approach. 

The judge at her trial doesn’t even entertain giving back the car. He does say Tina could be compensated for the $300 she put into the car; however, he decides against it because the car is seen as worthless to him. If it is so worthless then why does the county want to proceed with seizing a “valueless” car? Nonetheless, they do. 

Tina appeals and the case makes it up to the United States Supreme Court where they are to decide if Tina not being able to assert an innocent owner defense violates the constitution. Tina argues the seizure of the car that she paid for because of something her husband did unbeknownst to her is a violation of her due process rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of 1995 wasn’t a whole lot better than it is today and ruled nope, actually that is a-okay. 

SCOTUS is like “yeah it sucks that your car was taken because your husband did something illegal in it without your knowledge, but our hands are tied due to precedent.” This precedent was set in 1827 when a ship that was commissioned by seventh King of Spain attacked a United States naval vessel and the ship was forfeited even though the government pirates, not the owner, were the ones responsible for the attack. The court held that although the owner himself was not responsible for the attack, the offense was caused by the ship so therefore, the ship is guilty and can be seized. 

Proponents of civil forfeiture argue that it is a valuable system that allows law enforcement to take down drug lords and other criminals. This is obviously why all the Pablo Escabars and Charles Ponzis of the world are no longer in action. In reality,  civil forfeiture operations target disenfranchised groups who are least likely to be able to defend themselves in court. 

Pennsylvania state law doesn’t just allow, it incentivizes law enforcement to participate in this system. Philadelphia, city of brotherly love, the birthplace of the U.S. constitution is notorious for its forfeiture scheme, what many Philadelphian prosecutors un-satirically call “seize and steal orders”. PA law allows law enforcement to retain 100% of proceeds from the forfeiture, so why wouldn’t they take over 1,200 homes, $47 million in cash, 3,400 vehicles, as well as other things like jewelry or electronics? Absolutely none, zero of the assets stolen have gone to funding proactive, community based anti drug or crime prevention. 

It does not have to be like this. Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, and North Carolina have completely done away with civil forfeiture. Pennsylvanians can no longer be subject to this and must be next in making civil forfeiture as well as policing for profit a thing of the past.

 

https://fee.org/articles/philadelphias-perverse-civil-asset-forfeiture-machine-has-finally-come-to-an-end/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/clarence-thomas-civil-forfeiture/521583/

 

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-2/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/

 

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-2/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/philadelphias-civil-forfeiture-machine/

 

https://ij.org/client/terry-rolin/]