Guilty Until Proven Innocent An FBI raid in Beverly Hills tests the limits of civil forfeiture.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/guilty-until-proven-innocent-11625697428?mod=opinion_lead_pos4
“If the FBI and U.S. Attorney have proof of wrongdoing, bring it on. But the burden for depriving an American of property is on the government to prove guilt, not on the targeted to prove innocence.”
When the FBI raided U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills in March, it did so after the business had been indicted for conspiring to launder money, sell drugs and other crimes. But the FBI also took control of $86 million in cash and valuables it found in the safe deposit boxes of people who haven’t been accused of a crime. Some of these folks have sued, and two weeks ago federal Judge R. Gary Klausner granted a temporary restraining order preventing the FBI from taking permanent legal title of the seized contents of the plaintiffs’ boxes.
The Institute for Justice is representing seven plaintiffs in this case. Their argument is that they have done nothing wrong and should not have to go through the cumbersome civil forfeiture process to prove that their cash, jewelry or precious metals are legitimately theirs.
Judge Klausner seems to think they may have a case, taking aim at the FBI’s forfeiture notice. “This notice, put bluntly, provides no factual basis for the seizure of Plaintiffs’ property whatsoever,” the judge wrote in granting the restraining order.
U.S. Private Vaults is a private safe-deposit company that asks fewer questions than banks, and its boxes could be used to stash ill-gotten cash, drugs or other loot. Even so, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process before property can be taken.
Take Jeni Pearsons and Michael Storc, a married couple. She works at a nonprofit theater in Los Angeles, and he is a transportation coordinator in the film industry. In their box they kept $20,000 of silver they had saved over the years for retirement. Now the government wants to confiscate their silver—without saying what they did wrong.
Some of this is due to the vague standards of civil forfeiture law, which allows government to seize property without evidence of criminal behavior. That’s why some argue the real solution is to eliminate civil forfeiture and allow only criminal forfeiture.
Meantime, the original warrant from U.S. Magistrate Steve Kim approved the raid but also made clear he wasn’t authorizing a fishing expedition. “This warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes,” he said.
That’s why the restraining order Judge Klausner granted is so important. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the government cannot take their property without first sending them “forfeiture notices that identify the specific factual and legal basis for the Government’s determination to commence civil forfeiture proceedings.” On June 29, prosecutors asked the judge to change his mind and say that property owners are not entitled to that notice.
The FBI forfeiture list on the contents of the seized boxes reports 14 that each held more than $1 million. Perhaps some of this comes from illegal sources, but the mere possession of cash is not proof of guilt.
If the FBI and U.S. Attorney have proof of wrongdoing, bring it on. But the burden for depriving an American of property is on the government to prove guilt, not on the targeted to prove innocence.
Comments are closed.
