DEA stop a program where agents take cash from as many people as possible at airports

The DEA, for years, was finding ways to claim any passenger with cash over certain amounts were using it for drugs. They would seize the cash by using civil asset forfeiture policies, in a way they could have funds without going through Congress. Most of the time, the courts made trying to get the money back too expensive. This has become an issue, as people lose their life savings from these abuses of power. People at airports are forced to either lose their money or miss their flights, but sometimes ends up with both happening.

Civil asset forfeiture is a crime, but the government gets away with it because the government, both bureaucrats and politicians, make it easy. They are then assisted by courts who want to make it harder for citizens to get a chance at justice, unless the citizen has enough money. This is all made worse when people are ambushed at airports, which is already stressful enough. The Department of Justice has suspended the program because of concerns from the Inspector General.

Seized Amounts

Here, via a press release from Congressman Tim Walberg of Michigan, is how much is being seized.

https://walberg.house.gov/media/in-the-news/epoch-times-civil-forfeiture-how-government-makes-billions-taking-americans

The reason the government and law enforcement agencies continue to use civil forfeiture, according to Ms. West, is because it’s incredibly lucrative.

Between 2000 and 2019, states and the federal government pocketed a combined total of $68.8 billion through forfeiture, according to IJ’s “Policing for Profit” report. However, it adds, “Because not all states provided full data, this figure drastically underestimates forfeiture’s true scope.”

IJ’s report is the only comprehensive study that examines civil forfeiture in all 50 states and federally. IJ released its first report in 2010 and publishes a new one every five years.

“Law enforcement agencies react to incentives just like everybody else does,” Ms. West said. “They get to keep the proceeds of forfeitures, and there are often very few limits on what they can do with it.”

For example, Ms. West said law enforcement purchased a $70,000 muscle car with its forfeiture fund in Georgia. And in New York, law enforcement spent $250,000 on travel and meals. “There are all kinds of crazy examples of things that law enforcement has done with forfeiture funds,” she said.

Recognizing the possible problematic nature of civil forfeiture, Ms. West said some states have enacted legislation to help protect citizens. Missouri, for example, passed a state constitutional amendment that requires forfeiture funds to go directly to schools. But Ms. West said, “In 2019, an investigation found that only two percent of forfeited funds in Missouri actually make it to Missouri schools.”

For states that have passed civil forfeiture practice reforms, law enforcement agencies can get around the constraints by participating in what’s known as “equitable sharing” with the Department of Justice (DOJ).

It works by the state partnering with the DOJ through its asset forfeiture program to transfer forfeiture funds to the DOJ’s asset forfeiture fund. The DOJ then uses some of those funds to “deter, disrupt, and dismantle criminal enterprises by depriving criminals of the instruments of illicit activity” and returns some of the transferred funds to the states afterward.

“[Law enforcement] can get back up to 80 percent of the proceeds through equitable sharing. Then the state reforms don’t apply to them because it’s a federal forfeiture, not a state forfeiture,” Ms. West explained.

In 2022, states deposited almost $1.8 billion to the DOJ’s forfeiture fund, according to the departments’ statistics. The most significant contributors were California, with over $291 million; New York, with over $223 million; Michigan, with over $221 million; the District of Columbia, with over $164 million; Florida, with over $146 million; and Texas, with over $125 million in deposits.

When contacted for comment, the Michigan State Police Department pointed The Epoch Times to its 2023 asset forfeiture report, which shows that between Jan. 1, 2022, and Dec. 31, 2022, the department seized $10 million in cash and assets from drug traffickers, and “asset forfeiture funds were utilized to support law enforcement by providing resources for equipment, personnel, vehicle, training, and supplies.”

In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment on civil forfeiture’s benefits and its ability to be abused, the Dallas Police Department said via email, “Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the Police Department the authority to seize certain property that has been used in the commission of certain felonies. After proper notice and a hearing, seized property may then be forfeited.

“The Dallas Police Department seizes property where probable cause exists to believe the property is contraband, under Chapter 59.”

The New York Police Department told The Epoch Times via email, “In every forfeiture matter handled by the NYPD, the defendant/owner is afforded due process and a full and fair opportunity to contest the forfeiture matter in court.

“With respect to motor vehicles in particular, in accordance with the federal court decision in Krimstock v. Kelly, vehicle owners have the right to a prompt hearing to challenge the seizure of their vehicle, and to request that it be returned to them while an action for forfeiture is pending. These hearings take place before the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

“All funds obtained through civil forfeiture settlements or judgments are deposited into the New York City general fund. The NYPD does not currently handle forfeiture cases involving currency.

DOJ Order

Here, via the DOJ OIG, is what was found and why the seizures were stopped.

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/25-005_3.pdf

The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your immediate attention serious concerns identified by the U.S. Department of Justice (Department, DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) during our ongoing oversight of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) transportation interdiction activities. The OIG’s oversight includes an evaluation of the DEA’s transportation interdiction activities and a separate ongoing OIG investigation, both of which were initiated earlier this year. This memorandum also follows prior OIG audits, reviews, and investigations that have identified significant issues with the DEA’s use of consensual encounters at transportation facilities and its management of its confidential source (CS) program, all of which have informed the analysis and recommendations in this memorandum.

The OIG recently identified that, during its transportation interdiction activities, the DEA was not complying with its own policy on consensual encounters conducted at mass transportation facilities, resulting in personnel creating potentially significant operational and legal risks. Specifically, the DEA was not complying with DEA policy to complete the DEA-177 Consensual Encounter Form (DEA-177 form) for each consensual encounter, despite prior DEA representations to the OIG that the DEA was doing so. Additionally, the DEA was not ensuring that all DEA task force personnel complete interdiction training required by DEA policy, despite the DEA’s prior representations to the OIG that the DEA would do so, resulting in personnel conducting interdiction activities at transportation facilities without first receiving the required training.

In our view, and as described in detail below, proceeding with such interdiction activities in the absence of critical controls, such as adequate policies, guidance, training, and data collection, creates substantial risks that DEA Special Agents (SA) and Task Force Officers (TFO) will conduct these activities improperly; impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of, innocent travelers; imperil the Department’s asset forfeiture and seizure activities; and waste law enforcement resources on ineffective interdiction actions. On November 12, 2024, after receiving a draft of this Management Advisory Memorandum (MAM), the Deputy Attorney General issued a directive to the DEA to suspend conducting, pending an assessment and evaluation, all consensual encounters at mass transportation facilities unless they are either connected to an existing investigation or approved by the DEA Administrator based on exigent circumstances.

There is more that can be said in this video, but this should concern everyone.

All my links: https://linktr.ee/RedneckThinker