We've had threads before about civil asset forfeiture and specific
instances of warrantless search and seizure at Hartsfield Atlanta
airport. These can be DEA operations (like this case) but other police
agencies pull the scam too. It works like this. A traveller has passed
through TSA and is on his way to his gate. Typically he has checked in
and holds his boarding pass. DEA or police get an alert from TSA that
the traveler is alone, on a one-way ticket, and possibly made a
last-minute purchase.

For police, this is the type of traveler that may have contraband in
luggage or cash to seize.

We've heard of the encounters taking place on the jetway as the plane is
being boarded or even on the plane after boarding but prior to
departure.

The passenger is subject to a great deal of intimidation and an implied
or actual threat that he'll miss his plane. The police may physically
block passage, demand to inspect ID and grab the boarding pass to
prevent boarding, and grab carry-on luggage.

The police demand consent to search one's person or luggage or both, but
once one is under threat, one can no longer consent voluntarily.

If the passenger is blocked from boarding, if there is coersion, then
there is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. The search is not
consensual; it is warrantless.

If the cop finds cash (or sometimes valuables that can be sold), it's
forfeit as "guilty property" as the cop has just made shit up about
reasonable suspicion that it will be used in a crime or is the proceeds
of a crime. Judges, for CENTURIES, have been allowing cops to get away
with this. Once property is presumed guilty by the cop, the judge does
not enforce the reasonable articulable suspicion standard. Guilty
property doesn't go through criminal courts; there are no rights at
arrest, no criminal charges, no need for the prosecution to meet either
a probable cause standard or meet the standard of proof required in a preliminary hearing to proceed to trial.

With no underlying crime charged against the owner of the property who
is suspected of no crime, the property isn't automatically returned. The
owner must go to court, undoubtably spending a lot more money on legal
fees than the value of the property.

But in the case of federal law, the owner can apply for reimbursement of attorneys' fees if he "substantially prevails in court".

In these cases, trial courts are inherently biased against the property
owner. In the immediate case, the government stopped fighting the civil
asset forfeiture, $8500 in cash seized from an Army veteran who was
traveling to enter into a music deal. The trial judge denied attorneys'
fees as the owner had not "substantially prevailed in court" with the government ending its contest.

Reversed on appeal.

There can never be justice in these cases. The owner lost the business opportunity, spent a great deal of time trying to get his own property returned, and given how high attorneys' fees are, it cannot be fought in
court.

In this case, we're talking about $15,000, four years after the incident

Because of qualified immunity, there is no possibility of suing the
police, the department, lawyers for the government, or ghod forbid,
any of the judges who fail to shut crap like this down at the very
first hearing with a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Institute for Justice case discussed in a Steve Lehto video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjivzdV8RX0

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-09-01 12:24 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

We've had threads before about civil asset forfeiture and specific
instances of warrantless search and seizure at Hartsfield Atlanta
airport. These can be DEA operations (like this case) but other police agencies pull the scam too. It works like this. A traveller has passed through TSA and is on his way to his gate. Typically he has checked in
and holds his boarding pass. DEA or police get an alert from TSA that
the traveler is alone, on a one-way ticket, and possibly made a
last-minute purchase.

For police, this is the type of traveler that may have contraband in
luggage or cash to seize.

We've heard of the encounters taking place on the jetway as the plane is being boarded or even on the plane after boarding but prior to
departure.

The passenger is subject to a great deal of intimidation and an implied
or actual threat that he'll miss his plane. The police may physically
block passage, demand to inspect ID and grab the boarding pass to
prevent boarding, and grab carry-on luggage.

The police demand consent to search one's person or luggage or both, but
once one is under threat, one can no longer consent voluntarily.

If the passenger is blocked from boarding, if there is coersion, then
there is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. The search is not consensual; it is warrantless.

If the cop finds cash (or sometimes valuables that can be sold), it's
forfeit as "guilty property" as the cop has just made shit up about reasonable suspicion that it will be used in a crime or is the proceeds
of a crime. Judges, for CENTURIES, have been allowing cops to get away
with this. Once property is presumed guilty by the cop, the judge does
not enforce the reasonable articulable suspicion standard. Guilty
property doesn't go through criminal courts; there are no rights at
arrest, no criminal charges, no need for the prosecution to meet either
a probable cause standard or meet the standard of proof required in a preliminary hearing to proceed to trial.

With no underlying crime charged against the owner of the property who
is suspected of no crime, the property isn't automatically returned. The owner must go to court, undoubtably spending a lot more money on legal
fees than the value of the property.

But in the case of federal law, the owner can apply for reimbursement of attorneys' fees if he "substantially prevails in court".

In these cases, trial courts are inherently biased against the property owner. In the immediate case, the government stopped fighting the civil
asset forfeiture, $8500 in cash seized from an Army veteran who was
traveling to enter into a music deal. The trial judge denied attorneys'
fees as the owner had not "substantially prevailed in court" with the government ending its contest.

Reversed on appeal.

There can never be justice in these cases. The owner lost the business opportunity, spent a great deal of time trying to get his own property returned, and given how high attorneys' fees are, it cannot be fought in court.

In this case, we're talking about $15,000, four years after the incident

Because of qualified immunity, there is no possibility of suing the
police, the department, lawyers for the government, or ghod forbid,
any of the judges who fail to shut crap like this down at the very
first hearing with a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Institute for Justice case discussed in a Steve Lehto video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjivzdV8RX0

Stipulating all of the above, if you were elected the Senate Majority
Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with changing the law
to set up *reasonable* grounds for civil asset forfeiture to stop the
abuses, what would your law contain?

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sep 1, 2025 at 10:21:54 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Stipulating all of the above, if you were elected the Senate Majority
Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with changing the law
to set up *reasonable* grounds for civil asset forfeiture to stop the
abuses, what would your law contain?

Easy. Assets can only be seized after the owner has been charged with and convicted of a crime. After conviction, seize away. But no more of this nonsense where they take thousands of dollars in cash or vehicles or whatever, then never even investigate, let alone charge, the owner with a crime.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 17:35:45 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Sep 1, 2025 at 10:21:54 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >wrote:

Stipulating all of the above, if you were elected the Senate Majority
Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with changing the law
to set up *reasonable* grounds for civil asset forfeiture to stop the
abuses, what would your law contain?

Easy. Assets can only be seized after the owner has been charged with and >convicted of a crime. After conviction, seize away. But no more of this >nonsense where they take thousands of dollars in cash or vehicles or whatever, >then never even investigate, let alone charge, the owner with a crime.

Agreed. If they don't have the evidence to even charge someone with a
crime then how can they decide the money or other property has to be
involved in a crime. Forcing the LEOs to move forward with finding
actual evidence of a crime and charging someone with a crime helps to
get rid of the abuse of civil asset forfeiture, which we know is way
too common.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Sep 1, 2025 at 10:21:54 AM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

Stipulating all of the above, if you were elected the Senate Majority >>Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with changing the law
to set up *reasonable* grounds for civil asset forfeiture to stop the >>abuses, what would your law contain?

Easy. Assets can only be seized after the owner has been charged with and >convicted of a crime. After conviction, seize away. But no more of this >nonsense where they take thousands of dollars in cash or vehicles or whatever, >then never even investigate, let alone charge, the owner with a crime.

I liked your suggestion that there must be probable cause against the
PROPERTY and that it's entitled to a public defender at its criminal
trial.

Why not eliminate it altogether? There's always a tort. Let the victim
(or estate) sue, or let the government sue on behalf of victims. Then preponderance of the evidence applies.

What's the burden of proof for the cop to have grabbed the cash to begin
with? "I saw the cash and grabbed it."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-09-01 1:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Sep 1, 2025 at 10:21:54 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Stipulating all of the above, if you were elected the Senate Majority
Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged with changing the law
to set up *reasonable* grounds for civil asset forfeiture to stop the
abuses, what would your law contain?

Easy. Assets can only be seized after the owner has been charged with and convicted of a crime. After conviction, seize away.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Shouldn't there be more conditions than that? After all, the cops and
lawyers don't know if the property that they want to seize is the
proceeds of crime. How do we know the guy didn't inherit the property
from a relative or pay for it with his own honest earnings?

But no more of this
nonsense where they take thousands of dollars in cash or vehicles or whatever,
then never even investigate, let alone charge, the owner with a crime.

Agreed. That all sounds extremely dodgy. Frankly, I'm baffled that it's
been tolerated as long as it has.

Tell me this: WHY do the LEOs do civil asset forfeitures in the first
place? Is there any defensible reason for it from a law enforcement
point of view? Why haven't the courts overturned the practice? I have to
assume that people have tried to fight the seizure of their assets and
probably appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

Tell me this: WHY do the LEOs do civil asset forfeitures in the first
place? Is there any defensible reason for it from a law enforcement
point of view? Why haven't the courts overturned the practice? I have to >assume that people have tried to fight the seizure of their assets and >probably appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

They want to spend the money. It's that simple. They don't need to
defend it. The burden of proof is on the owner.

Courts, going back to England under common law, refuse to apply any sort
of standard of evidence. The cop, with no basis, assumes the property is proceeds of a crime or about to be used in a crime.

If courts require no evidence, then you can get away with murder.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-09-01 2:18 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

Tell me this: WHY do the LEOs do civil asset forfeitures in the first
place? Is there any defensible reason for it from a law enforcement
point of view? Why haven't the courts overturned the practice? I have to
assume that people have tried to fight the seizure of their assets and
probably appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

They want to spend the money. It's that simple. They don't need to
defend it. The burden of proof is on the owner.

Courts, going back to England under common law, refuse to apply any sort
of standard of evidence. The cop, with no basis, assumes the property is proceeds of a crime or about to be used in a crime.

If courts require no evidence, then you can get away with murder.

Don't the courts, especially the Supreme Court, see this as the naked
property grab that it is? Shouldn't they have the moral sense to see
that it's wrong?

A lot of people here are getting massively annoyed with speed cameras
which seem to be a naked cash grab. A group in Brampton actually
circulated a petition saying they wanted the practice to stop.
Certainly, plenty of people have been nailed by those cameras and
assessed fines. City governments say they're needed because of safety -
they're mostly put up in school zones - but NEVER offer any statistics
to show that the cameras are increasing safety. Meanwhile, the volume of tickets is so high that they had to build a new data centre in my area
to process them all, something that cost millions and requires umpteen
new employees. A cynic would say that these cameras are just a scam to
make money and create jobs for their friends. This isn't civil asset
forfeiture but it seems to be just as naked a cash grab.

But at least we could elect a different city council which could
conceivably do away with the cameras. With civil asset forfeiture, it's
a good bit harder to end it. Maybe a class action suit launched by
people who've had things seized?

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-09-01 2:18 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

. . .

Tell me this: WHY do the LEOs do civil asset forfeitures in the first >>>place? Is there any defensible reason for it from a law enforcement
point of view? Why haven't the courts overturned the practice? I have to >>>assume that people have tried to fight the seizure of their assets and >>>probably appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

They want to spend the money. It's that simple. They don't need to
defend it. The burden of proof is on the owner.

Courts, going back to England under common law, refuse to apply any sort
of standard of evidence. The cop, with no basis, assumes the property is >>proceeds of a crime or about to be used in a crime.

If courts require no evidence, then you can get away with murder.

Don't the courts, especially the Supreme Court, see this as the naked >property grab that it is? Shouldn't they have the moral sense to see
that it's wrong?

There have been isolated victories for justice. There is no case that
generally makes this unconstitutional.

It's also not straightforward as there are multiple potential
constitutional violations, not just one.

1) No legal standard justifying the cop's suspicion to begin with,
leading to everything else

2) Warrantless seizure

3) Warrantless search

4) No probable cause to charge an underlying crime; hell, cops know
nothing about any crime at all

5) In rare instances of a crime charged but it gets dismissed or
acquittal, no instant return of seized property

6) The burden of proof justifying the forfeiture is too low, but every
time I read about one of these, the judge isn't even forcing compliance
with the low burden

7) The entire legal fiction that property can be guilty

8) The shifting of the burden of proof to the owner

9) My personal suspicion that when a crime has been charged, the purpose
lf the forteiture is to deny the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel of his choice because he can no longer afford an attorney

There are another half dozen related issues that BTR1701 can name that
need to be addressed. Unless and until all are addressed, some aspects
of this will remain.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)