Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

glentackitt

User Profile Image glentackitt
Member since : May-26-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 11 Comments, 97 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

DRIVING THROUGH TENAHA, TEXAS, DOESN'T PAY FOR SOME TEXAS, BLACK MOTORISTS

The Tenaha, Texas welcome sign on March 3. The tiny east Texas town is making money by pulling over black motorists and seizing their cash and property without charging them with any crime. A lawsuit alleges that the town's police pull over motorists -- especially African Americans -- and extort money and valuables by threatening criminal charges or worse.

You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana state line if you're African American, but you might not be able to drive out of it -- at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.

That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: Sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.

More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, Ohio, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with or convicted of any crime.

Officials in Tenaha, along a heavily traveled state highway connecting Houston with several popular gambling destinations in Louisiana, say they are engaged in a battle against drug trafficking, and they call the search-and-seizure practice a legitimate use of the state's asset-forfeiture law. That law permits local police agencies to keep drug money and other property used in the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets.

"We try to enforce the law here," said George Bowers, mayor of the town of about 1,100 residents, where boarded-up businesses outnumber open ones and City Hall sports a broken window. "We're not doing this to raise money. That's all I'm going to say at this point."

But civil rights lawyers call Tenaha's practice something else: highway robbery. The attorneys have filed a federal class-action lawsuit seeking unspecified damages and a halt to what they contend is an unconstitutional perversion of the law's intent, used primarily against African Americans who have done nothing wrong.

Tenaha officials "have developed an illegal 'stop and seize' practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from apparently nonwhite citizens and those traveling with nonwhite citizens," asserts the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.

The property seizures are not happening just in Tenaha. In southern parts of Texas near the Mexican border, for example, Latinos allege that they are being singled out.

According to a prominent Texas state legislator, police agencies across the state are wielding the asset-forfeiture law more aggressively to supplement their shrinking operating budgets.

"If used properly, it's a good law-enforcement tool to see that crime doesn't pay," said Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire, chairman of the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee. "But in this instance, where people are being pulled over and their property is taken with no charges filed and no convictions, I think that's theft."

Money, minorities

David Guillory, an attorney in nearby Nacogdoches who filed the federal lawsuit, said he combed through Shelby County court records from 2006 to 2008 and discovered nearly 200 cases in which Tenaha police seized cash and property from motorists. In about 50 of the cases, suspects were charged with drug possession.

But in 147 others, Guillory said the court records showed, the police seized cash, jewelry, cellphones and sometimes even automobiles from motorists but never found any contraband or charged them with any crime. Of those, Guillory said he managed to contact 40 of the motorists directly -- and discovered that all but one of them were black.

"The whole thing is disproportionately targeted toward minorities, particularly African Americans," Guillory said. "Every one of these people is pulled over and told they did something, like, 'You drove too close to the white line.' That's not in the penal code, but it sounds plausible. None of these people have been charged with a crime; none were engaged in anything that looked criminal. The sole factor is that they had something that looked valuable."

In some cases, police used the fact that motorists were carrying large amounts of cash as evidence that they must have been involved in laundering drug money, even though Guillory said each of the drivers he contacted could account for where the money had come from and why they were carrying it -- such as for a gambling trip to Shreveport, La., or to purchase a used car from a private seller.

Once the motorists were detained, the police and the Shelby County district attorney quickly drew up legal papers presenting them with an option: Waive their rights to their cash and property or face felony charges for crimes such as money laundering -- and the prospect of having to hire a lawyer and return to Shelby County multiple times to contest the charges in court.

Apparently routine

The process apparently is so routine in Tenaha that Guillory discovered pre-signed and pre-notarized police affidavits with blank spaces left for an officer to fill in a description of the property being seized.

Jennifer Boatright, her husband and two young children -- a mixed-race family -- were traveling from Houston to visit relatives in East Texas in April 2007 when Tenaha police pulled them over, alleging that they were driving in a left-turn lane.

After searching the car, the officers discovered what Boatright said was a gift for her sister: a small, unused glass pipe made for smoking marijuana. Although they found no drugs or other contraband, the police seized $6,037 that Boatright said the family was carrying to purchase a used car -- and then threatened to turn their children, ages 10 and 1, over to Child Protective Services if the couple didn't agree to sign over their right to their cash.

"It was give them the money or they were taking our kids," Boatright said. "They suggested that we never bring it up again. We figured we better give them our cash and get the hell out of there."

Several months later, after Boatright and her husband contacted an attorney, Tenaha officials returned their money but offered no explanation or apology. The couple remain plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

Except for Tenaha's mayor, none of the defendants in the federal lawsuit, including Shelby County Dist. Atty. Lynda Russell and two Tenaha police officers, responded to requests for comment about their search-and-seizure practices. Lawyers for the defendants also declined to comment, as did several of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

But Whitmire says he doesn't need to await the suit's outcome to try to fix what he regards as a statewide problem. On Monday, he introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would require police to go before a judge before attempting to seize property under the asset-forfeiture law -- and ultimately Whitmire hopes to tighten the law further so that law-enforcement officials will be allowed to seize property only after a suspect is charged and convicted in a court.

"The law has gotten away from what was intended, which was to take the profits of a bad guy's crime spree and use it for additional crime fighting," Whitmire said. "Now it's largely being used to pay police salaries -- and it's being abused because you don't even have to be a bad guy to lose your property."

Synopsis:
Innocent owners who are never charged with a crime still must prove their innocence in complex proceedings, where many cases are lost before even coming to trial. Most forfeiture cases are never contested, in part because contesting the proceedings can cost more than the value of what's been confiscated. The average vehicle seized is worth about $4,000. To defend a case, especially when you're out of state, they've pretty much made it cost prohibitive. Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

Comments Posted

glentackitt 9 months ago
I believe the only way we can expect reform of these laws is to take away the profit motive of keeping marijuana illegal. The asset forfeiture laws have made small time busts extremely lucrative for police and DEA agencies.

Click here to read more.
Federal and State Asset Forfeiture Laws Need Reform
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4321-4049

As long as billions of dollars flow into the coffers of Federal and State asset seizure, there is more than enough incentive not to endorse change to existing laws. The old adage "hit em in the pocket book" is especially applicable when discussing this issue.

Now, to be fair, I must say I do not endorse the use of harsh drugs like cocaine. I have seen too many lives ruined from abuse. This said, our government needs to take a different approach to helping people who have become addicted to these substances. Incarceration has not worked. If asset seizure cannot be completely abolished, the preferred goal, then I would like to see ALL seizure assets flow into federally funded treatment for cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin addicts and the like. None of this money should go to more seizures or be allowed to pay department salaries. This only encourages abuse of power.

I do not include marijuana in this list because I see it as basically a "soft" drug. As such I don't think it should be included in the schedule 1 classification and should instead be listed as "having medical benefit" and listed in schedule 5.

glentackitt 9 months ago
Are you convinced yet?

Further abuse is found in what is sometimes described as law enforcement extortion. This involves the practice of offering "out of court" cash settlements to otherwise innocent or minimally culpable individuals whose property was seized in exchange for a return of their property.

Debra V. Hill's case illustrates this practice in action. She and her family were guests in a house that police raided. During the raid, the police discovered a small amount of methamphetamine in a box of clothing that did not belong to her. The police confiscated the $550 in her possession. She was so desperate for the cash that she agreed to forfeit $250 to the prosecutor in return for the remaining $300.

When the charges against her were dropped, she did not receive the balance of her money.(7) And there is the case of Kevin Perry, a gravel pit laborer from Ossipee, New Hampshire. After he and his wife pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of growing four marijuana plants, the United States sought to forfeit their mobile home, worth $22,000. Following a fifteen-month battle to avoid homelessness, the government finally agreed to return the home for $2500. In order to pay the $2500, Mr. Perry had to take out a loan to be repaid at a rate of $155.63 a month.(8)

Finally, the lucrative business of asset forfeiture has created a strong temptation for law enforcement officials to pursue assets at the expense of pursuing convictions. The extensive use of civil forfeiture by federal and state law enforcement authorities has led to the confiscation of billions of dollars in drug assets. All of the money and property seized by state and federal officials is deposited back into the budgets of the seizing agencies.

What originally was seen as a means of forcing criminals to pay for their own apprehension, has become an incentive for local, state and federal officials to seize property to auction justice to the highest bidder. As a result, major drug dealers are allowed to barter their way out of lengthy prison terms by prosecutors who have become preoccupied with huge sums of money to be obtained from drug forfeiture assets.

Conversely, low level drug users, with no assets or information to swap, are exposed to the full wrath of the harsh drug laws, specifically designed over the past decade for the worst drug offenders. Last fall, two reporters from the Boston Globe uncovered the distressing truth about this practice in action in Massachusetts. They compared the distinctly different experiences of Rachel Acevedo and Stephen Fenderson. Rachel Acevedo, a 25-year-old mother of three, is currently serving a ten year mandatory sentence, without the possibility of parole. She was prosecuted along with her former boyfriend for selling four ounces of cocaine to an undercover drug officer.

The boyfriend fled before trial, leaving Ms. Acevedo the lone target for the prosecutors. Stephen Fenderson, on the other hand, had his home raided by police, where they found 23 bags of cocaine, a loaded illegal shotgun, ammunition, and other drugs hidden throughout the house. All tolled, these offenses would normally subject him to a mandatory sentence of fifteen years in prison. This did not occur.

Mr. Fenderson forfeited $425,000 in drug money, and is a free man today after serving only 2½ years.(9) It seems that crime does pay if you are able to ante up to law enforcement.
glentackitt 9 months ago
From Fear.org

The Double-Edged Sword undercover researcher observed agencies abandon investigations of suspects they knew were trafficking large amounts of contraband simply because the case was not profitable. Agents routinely targeted low level dealers rather than big traffickers, who are better able to insulate themselves and their assets from reverse sting operations. The report states: "Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking."

A reverse sting operation, where the officer becomes the seller who encourages the suspect to commit a crime (this used to be called entrapment), "was the preferred strategy of every agency and department with which the researcher was associated because it allowed agents to gauge potential profit prior to investing a great deal of time and effort." More importantly, the narcotics units studied preferred seizing cash intended for purchase of drugs supplied by the police, rather than confiscating drugs already on the street. When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband, one officer responded:
"Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We've got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants."

In one case an agency instructed the researcher to observe the suspect's daily transactions reselling a large shipment of cocaine so that officers could postpone making the bust until after the majority of the drug shipment was converted to cash (contributing to the problem of drug abuse instead of helping). This case was only one of many in which the goal was profit rather than reducing the supply of drugs reaching the street.

Thirteen additional years of policing for profit have now entrenched agencies in a dependency on forfeiture revenue that continues to subordinate the pursuit of justice to the pursuit of profit.
glentackitt 9 months ago
Killed any endangered rats lately?

Over 200 federal forfeiture laws are attached to non-drug related crimes. Even a false statement on a loan application can trigger forfeiture. Physicians are subject to forfeiture of their entire assets based on clerical errors in medicare billing.

The government even tried to forfeit a farmer's tractor for allegedly running over an endangered rat. The federal government obtained a judgment of forfeiture against the prized sailboat "Flash II," once owned by the late John F. Kennedy, without bothering to provide notice to the principle owner of the forfeiture proceeding against the sloop.

It took several years of expensive litigation before the district court in Massachusetts ruled the historic sailboat had never been legally subject to forfeiture; that the government had no right to seize and then sell the sloop; and that the proceeds of that sale rightfully belong to the innocent owner.
glentackitt 9 months ago
Another Outrage:

Luther Ricks and his wife worked most of their lives at a steel foundry in Ohio. Not trusting of banks (after this past year can you blame him?), they say they've lived frugally, and managed to save more than $400,000 over the years, which they kept in a safe in their home.

Last summer, two burglars broke into Ricks' home. He shot and killed one of them. Police determined he acted in self-defense, and cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. But local police did find a small amount of marijuana in Ricks' home, which Ricks says he uses to manage the pain of his arthritis and a hip replacement surgery. Ricks was never charged for the marijuana. But finding it in his home was enough for city police to confiscate Ricks and his wife's life savings under drug war asset forfeiture laws. Oddly enough, the FBI then stepped in, and claimed the money for itself.

Consistent with asset forfeiture laws, the federal government now says Ricks has to prove he earned the money legitimately in order to get it back. Of course, he doesn't have dated receipts going back thirty-plus years. And he can't hire a lawyer—the government has most of his money.

Also, under asset forfeiture laws, even if Ricks were able to prove in court that he earned the money legitimately, he, not the government, would have to absorb the court costs.
glentackitt 9 months ago
Prison labor is slave labor. Lets not mince words here.
glentackitt 9 months ago
I agree, privately owned prisons are a very bad idea.
glentackitt 9 months ago
To "opengov":
begin quote "This forum is not about spraying out as many ideas as possible..." end quote

I respectfully disagree.

From wikipedia:

Ground Rules

There are four basic rules in brainstorming.[6] These are intended to reduce social inhibitions among groups members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group.

1. Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim, quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
2. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
3. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions.
4. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

Conclusion: This forum IS about spraying out as many ideas as possible, then pairing down the number until a consensus is reached.
glentackitt 9 months ago
There is another issue here about decriminalization. The medical community needs to be able to explore the uses of this plant without fear and without waiting years for permission. There is mounting evidence that the 1000 or so compounds in the cannabis plant benefit a wide range of illnesses. Since I began reading about this subject 4 months ago, I have read/watched many anecdotal testimonies and quite a few scientific studies on the benefits of cannabis to treat illness. I have become convinced we need more exploration in this area and it just wont happen until the danger of arrest is gone.
glentackitt 9 months ago
I didn't write the above article but I believe it is important for everyone to read it. The title "Federal and State ..." does refer to the need to look at both. I agree, the problem is widespread and will only get worse unless something is done to stop it now. In my view, the entire concept of asset seizure is flawed.
glentackitt 9 months ago
I agree with decriminalization. We need to focus on the real criminals who harm us. 1 in 32 Americans are behind bars. This is unbelievable. We have become a "police state". Our liberties are being eroded. We need humane approaches to these issues.