We have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called “policing for profit” and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business. That was before it was seized by Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back. Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).
Mishra has been a stripper since 18 and wanted to make something better for her life. She gave the money to friends Rajesh and Marina Dheri, of Montville, N.J., to buy a nightclub with them in New Jersey — a business that she would own half of. The Dheris were in a rental car when Nebraska State Patrol Trooper Ryan Hayes pulled them over for speeding. This is an easy pretext for stops since most people travel above the speed limit on highways. As is often the case, the stop turned into a drug search and the officers asked if they could search the car. The couple consent and they found the money.
The camera system inside Trooper Hayes’ cruiser captured the Dheris’ converation as Trooper Hayes searched the vehicle. Id. ¶ 13. Mrs. Dheri asked Mr. Dheri, “What are you saying it is? Am I going to say I knew what it was or not?” Id. Mr. Dheri responded, “He asked me if there was money in the car and I said no.” Id. Mrs. Dheri later stated, “He’s going to ask you-you answer. It is not ours, it is our friends’.” Id. The Dheris also discussed the total amount of the money and stated the money was “about a million.” Id.
Trooper Hayes discovered three pieces of luggage in the vehicle’s rear cargo area. Id. ¶ 10. There were two duffel bags and one backpack. Id. In one duffel bag, there were several dryer sheets in the bottom of the bag and a drawstring bag that held three, large Ziplock baggies, each of which contained several rubber-banded bundles of money. Id. The second duffel bag contained empty Ziplock baggies and a drawstring bag that held several rubber-banded bundles of money. Id.
No drugs were found. However, a dog found traces of drugs on the money — and extremely common fact about currency in our society. A study in England founds that, like the United States, paper currency is saturated with drug residue and it is not simply money from drug areas or transactions.
I can understand the suspicion of the officer but I am confused why the Justice Department litigated the matter for years when there appears no connection to drug transactions.
The Justice Department continued to insist that it could keep the money but the court ruled “The government failed to show a substantial connection between drugs and the money” and added that “The court finds the Mishras’ story is credible.”
Bataillon ordered that Mishra receive cash or a check in the value of $1,074,000 with interest.
I am unclear of why the Justice Department gets away with dragging on such litigation without a factual basis for the allegation of a drug transaction. They put this woman through years of litigation and, even under the exceptionally generous rules and standards for seizure, could not make a case for treating the money as drug money.
Source:
@JustA~ here is the offending sentence as far as I can tell
What if he said “They put this woman through nearly two years of litigation…” or “…over a year of litigation”
does that make it ok?
And then… my question stands: Can we have the real discussion?
Michael – it is not justice and I said it stinks. But It is the law. And I think it has been on the books pre-Obama and Holder. Once it landed in federal court as NEBRASKA requested, could the DOJ refuse the case?
My argument is with our “reporter” and his inaccurate reporting -. Inaccurate reporting that hammers the Obama administration. It seems deliberate since all 500000 google hits report that the judge ordered NEBRASKA `to return the $1M. Now why would Turley make such a mistake?
And why would Turley mistake 15 months for “years”? He makes it sound like “Bleak House”.
Are we getting a measure of propaganda?
I read five or six posts by Turley everyday and I expect Turley to present the facts accurately – as you stated; “a solid factual base”. Then we can go on to discuss our opinions. But facts must come first.
I agree with your core assertion : Facts must come first. So, while agreeing with you on the point, I am not as certain it is a deal breaker to the larger point of not only the article, but also my and others more substantive derivative comments.
Maybe it was a brain fart? Maybe an unchecked fact that could be easily fixed.
So … lets give some benefit of the doubt… assume JT makes the correction to your point…
Now… what do we have? I think the larger issues then re-present themselves in exactly the same language and questions as noted above.
Can we have that discussion?
BTW The judge’s decision was delivered 15 MONTHS from the seizure.
Turley made the point three different times about the feds “taking years”.
I don’t know….I might consider it a minor miracle that it only took 15 months while dealing with the cops from Brownbeckistan.
The problem is that it took any time at all.
Or, to say it differently, that it happened at all.
Strange that the comments seem only to focus on this instance and not ponder the larger context/meaning.
O/Scribe offered another chilling example of the airplane seizure.
I reiterate the question… In what sense, in any context or Point of View, is this sort of happening Justice?
And if it is not, how is it possible to not declare unequivocally that our country is now no longer a Just place to live, no longer a country governed by Law. As our mythology would have it.
Seems we should start the conversations from some solid factual basis if there is to be any healing, redemption, or, in the words of Allysa above
Can the restoration begin without clarity on this and related points?
Well if “Judge orders Justice Dept to return funds” is the NEBRASKA justice department the statement is accurate. Just don’t won’t you folks to think Obama and Holder are personally holding the money.
Look, policing for profit stinks, but so does “coloring” a story.
Then there is this
Addendum: The Institute for Justice notes that “Nebraska is one of only three states that holds the government to the highest possible legal standard of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings, requiring law enforcement to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That probably explains why the cops in this case pursued forfeiture under federal law, which offers weaker protections for innocent owners. Banning such federal “adoption” is another reform that would help curtail forfeiture abuses, as would funneling forfeiture proceeds into the general fund rather than the coffers of police departments and prosecutors’ offices.
Also, some time was spent by Tara filing for a change of venue and also a more complicated issue of standing (feds being tricky here) because Tara was not in the car when the stop was made.
But to be clear, this was a Nebraska seizure – the Justice Dept. does not have her money.
Also, she DID pay taxes on the money and was able to document that it was kept in safety deposit box in a bank.
Turley wonders why the Justice Dept sought to drag out litigation for “years”. The arrest was March 2012. Years?
His source, ABC, says the judge ordered Nebraska to return the funds – not the “feds”.
Of course ABC, like a lot of journalism today, may have gotten the facts wrong. And unfortunately, I haven’t been successful in accessing the court case, but I am wondering how the money went from Nebraska to the feds. It is my understanding that the local authorities keep what they seize.
Can somebody look at the case and post what they find?
eminent domain at its nastiest best i do remember a couple years back i read a story on this blog about the cops who seized a couples hotel the hotel had been in their family for many many years passed down well the cops decided that the owners had to know that some years back people they were renting to was selling drugs and because of that the cops had the right to seize their hotel. ive been trying to find out more information on that story but for the life of me i now cant remember the names or the town had we not been so distracted by the phoniness of the billionaires we might have recognized what they were doing and we would have begun the fight back then. but that was the whole purpose of keeping us distracted, of keeping racial hatred going, and all the rest.
Michael.
Just for disclosure purposes I retured from the LE profession last year but I still keep tabs on it somewhat.
As for the judge’s ruling I entirely agree with it. In my opinion forfeiture laws are often abused, though one could say it is not always the police that does the abusing, it is the system that is often the abuser and the police are often following the law, though there are many examples, especially where it is taken advantage of.
I generally agree with forfeiture laws where the proceeds obtained from a felony are subject to confiscation. An example is where someone makes 100 grand from smuggling cocaine into the country. I don’t have a problem with that because the money was obtained from felonious activity.
I have a big problem where someone’s home is seized because they sold a gram of cocaine inside the house to someone and the authorities claim the house was used in the commission of a felony and therefore it is seized as an instrumentality. The reason for my objection is the standard fine for this crime is $5,000 and the state goes beyond this and confiscates a $200,000 house as a penalty. That is not equal justice in my book because one person who sells the same coke on a public street gets $5,000 fine and someone who does the same thing in their house gets punished for $205,000.
A third example is the case where the million dollars was basically stolen from someone because of a supposition on behalf of the state. That is because someone was carrying a million dollars in the car, they must be up to no good. That does not cut it in my view. It is not illegal to possess a million dollars in cash.
The problem is often the burden of proof is upon the defendant to prove the money was not proceeds of a felony or drug sales. Some states have procedures where a senior police official in the department where the seizure took place presides over the hearing. That is a complete conflict of interest in my view but unfortunately Washington’s supreme court ruled that this was “due process.” I don’t know why they felt that way but they do.
Where I worked things were not that bad as far as seizures went but some places are very aggressive on it. But it is entrenched in many areas and it is going to be hard to change. Plus most of the public has no sympathy for felons or drug dealers so they are not lobbying politicians to change the law and make it more fair. It’s probably the reason it has lasted as long as it has.
Just my two cents.
@Darren, I would be interested in your take/reaction to the post, and in particular the sentiments expressed by “Justice Holmes”.
As a police officer do you feel this way?
Is this how it looks to you from your seat?
Michael
The police “are the law”. Forfeiture is just another way they abuse the citizens. They can steal cash, cars, jewelry or even a motel. We are all at risk. Being innocent is no defense once the government has you!
I had one time where I arrested a guy at a weekend long outdoor music festival who had a Triscuit cracker box full of ecstacy, marijuana, and several large bindles of cocaine on him. I charged him with Possession with Intent to Deliver.
After a searched his wallet incident to arrest just as I was booking him he had about $400.00 in cash on him. I didn’t do a seizure notification but checked the cash into evidence.
A week afterward one of the evidence clerks wrote a nastygram to me saying I had to do a seizure notice on him and told me to write one up for the money. I wrote back to her that I could not articulate with a degree of certainty that I felt there was significant enough nexus to conclude the $400 was proceeds from drug sales when the person was staying three days at a music festival where all the attractions, food, camping, lodging etc was paid in cash and a reasonable person is likely to carry that amount of money to pay for lodging and sundry expenses. It was possible so it was checked into evidence for the court to decide if it was proceeds of a felony or not, I didn’t have enough proof at the time of arrest to conclude it was drug proceeds, so I left it to the judge to determine if it was or not. She didn’t like my answer and it went back and forth. My supervisor agreed with me but I had to argue my point to the senior administration of the department because the evidence clerk would not let it go. (Even though she was totally wrong in her belief she was the judge in the matter she couldn’t accept that a deputy had more say in the matter than she did)
So, from that point on unless in some future arrest I made if it was totally obvious the money / items was drug proceeds, I just ignored it and didn’t mention it in the report. It wasn’t worth the headache of arguing about it.
Sicko.
@Jerome 1,
Your comment reminds me of good advice when being engaged by the Mexican police.
That you can offer it in the context of America seems to have some indicative meaning.
clarification re: ?Yes kudos. But are you not, in this comment making the point that we are now in a place of systemic decline. Ie, why are kudos appropriate?”
What I meant to imply was that we don’t praise people for doing what they are supposed to do. And we don’t go out of our way to laud people for not doing bad things.
If a judge does justly shall we then throw a party? Well, if it that uncommon that it stands out then yes. But then, isnt that itself indicative of something?
That’s what I meant by appropriate. Maybe should have said necessary.
@frankmascagniiii
Yes kudos. But are you not, in this comment making the point that we are now in a place of systemic decline. Ie, why are kudos appropriate?
Your point about it being common and also irresistible by “common” clients seems to me to be the essential violation of all : that we cannot , in fact, expect justice from our justice system. That it takes some extra special circumstance, perseverance and/ or luck to obtain justice.
From my early “civics” lessons I remember one of the essential qualities of a functioning justice system was that it was predictable, knowable — something you could count on.
From the scriptures I learned that when the judges were corrupt it was the most dire of circumstances in the fate of a nation; there was no recourse or appeal.
So kudos indeed for this event…But is it predictable, or ad hoc? Can we learn anything judicial about this case more than that in this one this one judge did the right thing?
As an aside it would be interesting to review the body of this judges decisions to see what sort of underlying jurisprudence he functions from.
I hope this provokes some replies. I really am trying to find the part of the tree that is not rotten, and hoping our Liberty Tree still has some stuff in it at the core after all….
I have written a couple replies to this post of varying lengths and umbrage. But it all seemed too much.
It comes to this: Are we now in fact a lawless society? Have we, or are we close to actually tipping into that state where the institutions of justice and law enforcement are now the last places we could go to for justice and legal protection?
I know it is not a complete romp yet. But it seems we are well on the way to where incidences like this one are not just outliers and anecdotal, but are becoming the norm. Not that every encounter with the police or the “justice” system will/must end in this sort of thing… But it could. And there is no way to know if the next encounter will.
This applies to the petty to the consequential. In my experience I know when I see a police car I have no confidence that I wont be pulled over on some made up thing and cited for some made up reason. (I am not doing anything wrong…it is just that I expect, that at any moment it may be my turn to be accosted. Like a fish wary of the shark when it shows up not knowing if it is hungry or just passing thru.)
It is that level of caprice that this article speaks of, and that I experience.
That feeling seems to be the very definition of lawlessness at the practical level.
Yes? No?
That this judge did this justice is a good thing in this case. It seems to me however it is like pulling one weed in a field of weeds. And how long did it take? and at what cost to the victims? And how strange to be talking about citizens as victims anyway….
I’d love to be put in my place by some good examples and arguments why I am over reacting.
Proposition: We are not a lawless society drifting into a totalitarian state.
Michael
Don’t say anything when asked about having money. Not one word. Don’t consent to a search. The did everything wrong with this encounter with the police.
Jude, If we had larger bills then changing a hundred would be much easier because cash would have adjusted to inflation and folks would feel more @ ease using cash. I believe we should simply have $1k, $500, and then our current denominations except for pennies for chrissake! Most people will continue to use debit/credit cards for ease and safety. But, if given better options w/ cash, I think more folks will use it. We cash folks know how to use it as leverage. Who doesn’t love being paid cash and who isn’t willing to negotiate a lower price for receiving cash? Hardly anyone. I had an econ professor in 1972 predict that our govt. would steer us toward a cashless economy, where everything could be traced. 1972! The professor came from Cal Berkley, had photos of himself and Angela Davis. We called him “Professor Radical Ray.” A couple decades ago I came to realize just how intelligent he was.