In 10 Years DEA Has Taken $3.2 Billion Without Charges Filed

MattinBama · Mar 31, 2017

The Drug Enforcement Administration takes billions of dollars in cash from people who are never charged with criminal activity, according to a report issued today by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

Since 2007, the report found, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.

That total does not include the dollar value of other seized assets, like cars, homes, electronics and clothing.

These seizures are all legal under the controversial practice of civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to take cash, contraband and property from people suspected of crime. But the practice does not require authorities to obtain a criminal conviction, and it allows departments to keep seized cash and property for themselves unless individuals successfully challenge the forfeiture in court. Critics across the political spectrum say this creates a perverse profit motive, incentivizing police to seize goods not for the purpose of fighting crime, but for padding department budgets.

TideEngineer08 · Mar 31, 2017

That is astounding and utterly outrageous.

Displaced Bama Fan · Mar 31, 2017

The site locked up on me. I wonder how much the local and state "law" enforcement agencies pull in addition to what the DEA has taken.

This is one of the reasons why so many distrust law enforcement.

TIDE-HSV · Mar 31, 2017

Displaced Bama Fan said:
The site locked up on me. I wonder how much the local and state "law" enforcement agencies pull in addition to what the DEA has taken.

This is one of the reasons why so many distrust law enforcement.

LA, in particular, is really bad...

Bodhisattva · Mar 31, 2017

Shush now. Big Brother will take care of you.

TIDE-HSV · Mar 31, 2017

I don't care if you consider yourself right wing, left wing or one of the few left in the center, this should make you uncomfortable...

Bamaro · Mar 31, 2017

Due process would help

SkullDuckery · Mar 31, 2017

There is due process involved. Most of these seizures involve drug mules moving large amounts of cash in hidden compartments. When this cash is seized, they never return on their court date because of obvious reasons. It helps fund a lot of functions of LE that you are off the hook for as a citizen.

4Q Basket Case · Mar 31, 2017

TIDE-HSV said:
I don't care if you consider yourself right wing, left wing or one of the few left in the center, this should make you uncomfortable...

Amen, brother. I trust the government, left or right, about as far as I can throw the office building I work in.

Whether one approaches "right" from the red or blue starting point, it's a matter of time until the zeitgeist is against you.

If the guys you like can take someone else's property simply because, well, you disagree...it's a matter of a very short time until the tables are turned.

The current climate almost makes me glad I have no more than 30 or so years left in it.

MattinBama · Mar 31, 2017

SkullDuckery said:
There is due process involved. Most of these seizures involve drug mules moving large amounts of cash in hidden compartments. When this cash is seized, they never return on their court date because of obvious reasons. It helps fund a lot of functions of LE that you are off the hook for as a citizen.

There have been plenty of cases of people having money seized while going to purchase cars and other large items that to say "most involve drug mules" would need to have some factual stats behind it for me to believe it. Problem is it's one of those stats that I imagine would be impossible to verify/track.

Even if most cases do actually involve drug mules innocent citizens having money stolen on a regular basis needs to be stopped.

A more local case but goes against what you said:

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

NationalTitles18 · Mar 31, 2017

SkullDuckery said:
There is due process involved. Most of these seizures involve drug mules moving large amounts of cash in hidden compartments. When this cash is seized, they never return on their court date because of obvious reasons. It helps fund a lot of functions of LE that you are off the hook for as a citizen.

Are you a LEO? Does stealing money legally make you happy? Do the ends justify the means? There is "due process" only in name for most people. What percentage of people are deprived of their property before due process is applied?

"No person shall be deprived of...property...without due process of law". Would you think a person should be sentenced for a crime before being convicted? Would you believe they should then have to prove himself innocent to then be released from incarceration? Or should we impose the death penalty (depriving them of life) before the trial and then exonerate them only if evidence leads us there after they are dead?

No, of course, each of these escalates the stakes...but property is almost as important as liberty itself and some value liberty so much they would rather have it than life without it. So, even though of the three it is the least, the stealing of property is a very grave injustice not justified by saving the taxpayer who was stolen from some tax dollars in exchange for a thief taking what is rightfully theirs and then forcing them to prove the innocence of the money while navigating a legal and bureaucratic nightmare of a maze to pretty much do the next to impossible. The money itself is found guilty on the spot and the owner must then try to prove it innocent.

It is beyond ludicrous. It is unconscionable.

When these laws were first discussed we were reassured they would only be used to go after "drug kingpins". DRUG KINGPINS. Then they went after small time dealers and mules and drug users and innocent civilians just taking cash for the purpose of buying something of value.

There was a time I walked around (not very often, mind you) with several thousand dollars in my pocket - all legit from legal sources. NEVER sold drugs. NEVER used illicit drugs (not even MJ). For a while I didn't have a bank account at all. So i dealth strictly in cash. And at any time any cop for any reason could have declared that money guilty. And moneyless me is then supposed to get a lawyer and go through the maze in my poor ignorance to get my money back? Fat chance.

And now some cops want to have card readers to check gift card and maybe debit cards as well. So even the money in the bank is not theoretically safe. After all, guilty money is guilty money in whatever form in whatever place.

Third world policy of tyrants. That's what this is, pure and simple. And people of complete ignorance, naivety, and/or ill will continue to support it. I don't see how anyone with knowledge, understanding, and good will could ever support if. I don't mean that to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. Anyone can disagree should they wish.

SkullDuckery · Mar 31, 2017

NationalTitles16 said:
Are you a LEO? Does stealing money legally make you happy? Do the ends justify the means? There is "due process" only in name for most people. What percentage of people are deprived of their property before due process is applied?

"No person shall be deprived of...property...without due process of law". Would you think a person should be sentenced for a crime before being convicted? Would you believe they should then have to prove himself innocent to then be released from incarceration? Or should we impose the death penalty (depriving them of life) before the trial and then exonerate them only if evidence leads us there after they are dead?

No, of course, each of these escalates the stakes...but property is almost as important as liberty itself and some value liberty so much they would rather have it than life without it. So, even though of the three it is the least, the stealing of property is a very grave injustice not justified by saving the taxpayer who was stolen from some tax dollars in exchange for a thief taking what is rightfully theirs and then forcing them to prove the innocence of the money while navigating a legal and bureaucratic nightmare of a maze to pretty much do the next to impossible. The money itself is found guilty on the spot and the owner must then try to prove it innocent.

It is beyond ludicrous. It is unconscionable.

When these laws were first discussed we were reassured they would only be used to go after "drug kingpins". DRUG KINGPINS. Then they went after small time dealers and mules and drug users and innocent civilians just taking cash for the purpose of buying something of value.

There was a time I walked around (not very often, mind you) with several thousand dollars in my pocket - all legit from legal sources. NEVER sold drugs. NEVER used illicit drugs (not even MJ). For a while I didn't have a bank account at all. So i dealth strictly in cash. And at any time any cop for any reason could have declared that money guilty. And moneyless me is then supposed to get a lawyer and go through the maze in my poor ignorance to get my money back? Fat chance.

And now some cops want to have card readers to check gift card and maybe debit cards as well. So even the money in the bank is not theoretically safe. After all, guilty money is guilty money in whatever form in whatever place.

Third world policy of tyrants. That's what this is, pure and simple. And people of complete ignorance, naivety, and/or ill will continue to support it. I don't see how anyone with knowledge, understanding, and good will could ever support if. I don't mean that to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. Anyone can disagree should they wish.

i do disagree.

Does some local cop use the law and just make a bad decision, yes that has happened and most people get their cash back. But that's not the administrative procedure of the DOJ, that's comparing apples and oranges. Most states have a condemnation hearing in front of a circuit judge, a civil hearing. Do cops arrest the wrong people or kill innocent people? That's happened also and they should be dealt with like any bad apple. But I sure as hell am not advocating to take away their guns.

The DOJ has an administrative hearing on assets seized. Most of these cases are made by federal agents or local agents assisgned to a task force and under the direction of federal agents. These cases are tied to drug cartels, human trafficking rings, major theft rings and mafia types. The knowledge and proof are there of crimes being committed. It's just a tool to disrupt these organizations.

Its not theft no more then the IRS seizing your assists for tax fraud but no one is crying over that.
It's a legal process like anything else.

NationalTitles18 · Mar 31, 2017

SkullDuckery said:
i do disagree.

Does some local cop use the law and just make a bad decision, yes that has happened and most people get their cash back. But that's not the administrative procedure of the DOJ, that's comparing apples and oranges. Most states have a condemnation hearing in front of a circuit judge, a civil hearing. Do cops arrest the wrong people or kill innocent people? That's happened also and they should be dealt with like any bad apple. But I sure as hell am not advocating to take away their guns.

The DOJ has an administrative hearing on assets seized. Most of these cases are made by federal agents or local agents assisgned to a task force and under the direction of federal agents. These cases are tied to drug cartels, human trafficking rings, major theft rings and mafia types. The knowledge and proof are there of crimes being committed. It's just a tool to disrupt these organizations.

Its not theft no more then the IRS seizing your assists for tax fraud but no one is crying over that.
It's a legal process like anything else.

1. Prove to me that "most people get their cash back". I dare you.

2. Why should innocent people be deprived or their assets in the first place? Shouldn't they be guilty of something FIRST?

3. Prove to me that "These cases are tied to drug cartels, human trafficking rings, major theft rings and mafia types." No, I know SOME of them are. Prove they ALL are. Or even MOST.

4. I am against the IRS seizing money without first proving its case in a court of law. I may be in the minority on that. I may be in the minority in wanting to abolish the IRS as well.

5. A "legal process" means just that. A "legal process". It doesn't make it right morally. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

6. Would you be OK if it were YOU that had your money taken and had to prove your money innocent, however unlikely that might be. A number of people guilty of no crime whatsoever have found themselves in just that predicament. How would you feel if it happened to you? Would you change your mind then? $3.2 billion from people never convicted of a crime is a lot and means it COULD happen to you. And if some get their way it could be not just cash on your person, but cash on a gift or debit card.

I think experiencing it yourself might be the only thing to change your mind. I'm sure there have been others who felt just as you do who only changed their mind after experiencing it firsthand. Not gonna lie...I would be tempted to celebrate the karma in that, but I don't think I could for long because I do feel badly for the people who have gone through it already. Before you comment on this part of the matter, take a moment to think about the time and expense of getting your own money back. The uncertainty and worry that you might not get it back. The things you could not do because you didn't have your own money, had to spend your time and money getting your own money back, and the toll on you and/or your family and relationships.

Take a few moments and consider that. And after all that, there's still an at least decent chance you lose for all your efforts. If you do succeed, it may take months or even years. That you don't have your own money. Of more time and money spent to get back what is rightfully yours. Of stress and worry. Of strained relationships. Of missing work and income. Of potentially lost reputation in the process. Of missing important events just to get back what is yours. Of gathering document after document to try to prove your money's innocence. Of how ridiculous proving your money innocent even sounds.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone who suffered under this "law" would support it. Those who believe they are beyond its reach can.

SkullDuckery · Apr 1, 2017

NationalTitles16 said:
1. Prove to me that "most people get their cash back". I dare you.

2. Why should innocent people be deprived or their assets in the first place? Shouldn't they be guilty of something FIRST?

3. Prove to me that "These cases are tied to drug cartels, human trafficking rings, major theft rings and mafia types." No, I know SOME of them are. Prove they ALL are. Or even MOST.

4. I am against the IRS seizing money without first proving its case in a court of law. I may be in the minority on that. I may be in the minority in wanting to abolish the IRS as well.

5. A "legal process" means just that. A "legal process". It doesn't make it right morally. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

6. Would you be OK if it were YOU that had your money taken and had to prove your money innocent, however unlikely that might be. A number of people guilty of no crime whatsoever have found themselves in just that predicament. How would you feel if it happened to you? Would you change your mind then? $3.2 billion from people never convicted of a crime is a lot and means it COULD happen to you. And if some get their way it could be not just cash on your person, but cash on a gift or debit card.

I think experiencing it yourself might be the only thing to change your mind. I'm sure there have been others who felt just as you do who only changed their mind after experiencing it firsthand. Not gonna lie...I would be tempted to celebrate the karma in that, but I don't think I could for long because I do feel badly for the people who have gone through it already. Before you comment on this part of the matter, take a moment to think about the time and expense of getting your own money back. The uncertainty and worry that you might not get it back. The things you could not do because you didn't have your own money, had to spend your time and money getting your own money back, and the toll on you and/or your family and relationships.

Take a few moments and consider that. And after all that, there's still an at least decent chance you lose for all your efforts. If you do succeed, it may take months or even years. That you don't have your own money. Of more time and money spent to get back what is rightfully yours. Of stress and worry. Of strained relationships. Of missing work and income. Of potentially lost reputation in the process. Of missing important events just to get back what is yours. Of gathering document after document to try to prove your money's innocence. Of how ridiculous proving your money innocent even sounds.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone who suffered under this "law" would support it. Those who believe they are beyond its reach can.

I can't prove anything to you and it's not my place too. Contact DOJ and have them furnish the information to you.

Do you feel that crime organizations should keep their profits? It happens weekly in Alabama where illegal aliens are pulled over and $10,000 to 1 million dollars are seized administratively. These people are interviewed and admit they are smuggling drugs and people. Should we do away with a process that does much more good than harm? I don't think so but I'm not going to travel with large amounts of cash either. Not that I fear the Govt but I would be paranoid it would get stolen. Anyway I'm just trying to educate on a topic I have intimate knowledge on. If you don't believe me then that's you choice.

Tide1986 · Apr 1, 2017

SkullDuckery said:
I can't prove anything to you and it's not my place too. Contact DOJ and have them furnish the information to you.

Do you feel that crime organizations should keep their profits? It happens weekly in Alabama where illegal aliens are pulled over and $10,000 to 1 million dollars are seized administratively. These people are interviewed and admit they are smuggling drugs and people. Should we do away with a process that does much more good than harm? I don't think so but I'm not going to travel with large amounts of cash either. Not that I fear the Govt but I would be paranoid it would get stolen. Anyway I'm just trying to educate on a topic I have intimate knowledge on. If you don't believe me then that's you choice.

Methinks the idea of being innocent until proven guilty escapes you. If innocent people are regularly caught up in these "administrative procedures", then the procedures for sure should be reformed. And by the way, there are multiple threads herein with example after example of innocent people being deprived of their property.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 1, 2017

SkullDuckery said:
I can't prove anything to you and it's not my place too. Contact DOJ and have them furnish the information to you.

Do you feel that crime organizations should keep their profits? It happens weekly in Alabama where illegal aliens are pulled over and $10,000 to 1 million dollars are seized administratively. These people are interviewed and admit they are smuggling drugs and people. Should we do away with a process that does much more good than harm? I don't think so but I'm not going to travel with large amounts of cash either. Not that I fear the Govt but I would be paranoid it would get stolen. Anyway I'm just trying to educate on a topic I have intimate knowledge on. If you don't believe me then that's you choice.

You made a claim so I requested that you prove your statement true. I can prove it untrue, but why is it my place to do so when you made the original claim with no evidence and no intention of providing it because it doesn't exist (one can only presume based on your subsequent words).

Do you think people should keep their own money free of government theft when there is no proof of a crime? It happens at least week and likely near daily across the country where completely innocent people are pulled over by cops and the cops steal from them under color of law. These people are interviewed and deny any wrongdoing and the cops have no proof of wrongdoing but steal their money anyway. Should we do away with a process that does more harm than good? I think so, but I'm not profiting from legal theft either. I do fear a government that never has to prove a crime before stealing from its citizens their hard earned assets while looking them in the eye and telling them its for their own good. Anyway, I'm just trying to educate on a topic I've studied quite a bit even though I've thankfully never experienced it firsthand. If you choose personal profit (if you are in law enforcement or government you do personally profit from it) or to hide your head in the sand over believing it then that's your choice.

Here's a jumping off point to educate yourself. I can lead someone to information but I can't make them think.

http://ij.org/?post_type=post&p=53902

seebell · Apr 3, 2017

Bil to prevent the IRS from engaging in civil forfeiture without due process. Passed the House last year but Senate failed to act before end of session. Text of the bill at the link below.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s3353/text/is

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-money.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon

About five years ago, two agents with the Treasury Department showed up at Randy Sowers’ dairy farm in rural Maryland. Sowers wasn’t expecting company, but chatted with the agents about their area of interest: frequent and sizable cash deposits he put in his bank accounts.

Then they broke some news to him: His bank account was empty. They had seized the $65,000 he had there because they suspected he had committed a crime.

It took Sowers years to get the money back.

And now, a bipartisan group of members of Congress are trying to keep the feds from putting others through the same experience, introducing legislation that would put some limits on civil asset forfeiture—the process by which federal agents seized Sowers’ money.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 3, 2017

seebell said:
Bil to prevent the IRS from engaging in civil forfeiture without due process. Passed the House last year but Senate failed to act before end of session. Text of the bill at the link below.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s3353/text/is

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-money.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon

About five years ago, two agents with the Treasury Department showed up at Randy Sowers’ dairy farm in rural Maryland. Sowers wasn’t expecting company, but chatted with the agents about their area of interest: frequent and sizable cash deposits he put in his bank accounts.

Then they broke some news to him: His bank account was empty. They had seized the $65,000 he had there because they suspected he had committed a crime.

It took Sowers years to get the money back.

And now, a bipartisan group of members of Congress are trying to keep the feds from putting others through the same experience, introducing legislation that would put some limits on civil asset forfeiture—the process by which federal agents seized Sowers’ money.

Another drug kingpin getting sympathy from unamerican communists who think people have a right to keep what is their own money. That milk he's pushing is likely propofol. $65k back to the drug dealers. He's dang lucky to get his money back years later and that he didn't lose his farm, dirty drug dealer that he is.

TIDE-HSV · Apr 3, 2017

NationalTitles16 said:
Another drug kingpin getting sympathy from unamerican communists who think people have a right to keep what is their own money. That milk he's pushing is likely propofol. $65k back to the drug dealers. He's dang lucky to get his money back years later and that he didn't lose his farm, dirty drug dealer that he is.

When you get far enough into the ends justifying the means, your thinking gets warped. You can see it in this thread...

crimsonaudio · Apr 3, 2017

Hopefully the SCOTUS will take on one of these cases and stop this from happening. There are too many stories of completely innocent people having their money stolen by the police who hide behind this process.

In 10 Years DEA Has Taken $3.2 Billion Without Charges Filed

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

TideFans Legend

1st Team

FB|BB Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Senior Administrator

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!