Source: https://oversight.garden/reports/doj/s-2017-e1702
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:15:31+00:00

Document:
Published by the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General on 2017-03-29.
and punishing criminal conduct and in a manner that creates risks to civil liberties.
$3.2 billion during this 10-year period.
these authorities are being used appropriately.
through a manual, case-by-case review of component case management systems.
at Mass Transportation Facilities, Evaluation and Inspections Report 15-3 (January 2015).
may present potential risks to civil liberties.
revealed three important areas for the Department’s consideration.
cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.
enforcement officers are using their seizure authority in an arbitrary manner.
DOJ OIG, Cold Consent Encounters.
a federal criminal investigation or lead to a prosecution.
steps to ensure that it does not negatively impact law enforcement cooperation.
asset seizure and forfeiture activities to achieve these goals.
place undue risks on civil liberties.
a program the Department uses to pay for officer overtime and equipment needs.
forfeiture of property and payments to law enforcement partners.
the task force submitted an equitable sharing claim against subsequent seizures.
deputized state and local law enforcement officers.
sharing program and the BHPD returned over $1.2 million equitable sharing funds to the Department.
supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’” See United States v.
search vehicles after making traffic stops based on observed traffic infractions.
officers identify criminal activity that justifies federal involvement.
local investigations that become state or federal cases.
Chevrolet Impala, 614 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1980)).
that the amount should be at least $1,000.
identify links between past, present, and potential future investigations.
necessary because all states now have civil or criminal forfeiture laws.
Service (USMS) will take custody of the asset in support of a related judicial forfeiture action.
and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, January 16, 2015 (see Appendix 2).
Order on Adoptions, February 10, 2015 (see Appendix 3).
below) than was available through state forfeiture laws.
adoption of these asset types.
preponderance of the evidence, that the seized property was connected to a crime.
determination, if requested by the property owner.
DOJ MLARS, Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (2016), Ch. 2, and DOJ Offices of the U.S.
Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (2016), Ch. 9.
Real property and personal property valued over $500,000 must be civilly or criminally forfeited.
which makes it difficult to demonstrate these connections in larger data sets.
Program distributed over $6 billion to state and local law enforcement agencies.
as of March 28, 2016.
21 U.S.C. § 881(e)3 (1984).
elements of the Department’s asset seizure and forfeiture activities.
Warranted       suspected criminal proceeds on site         crime.
Administrative     Increases the speed and efficiency of      or prosecution of the owner.
information regarding state and local      adoptive seizure.
Reform Act” (June 11, 1997).
the investigative responsibilities of these agencies that can give rise to seizure.
conveyances, and certain real property involved in criminal activity.
connection with federal drug crimes.
of property used or acquired through illegal activity.
seizure authority and seizes assets primarily when a U.S. Attorney’s Office brings a forfeiture action.
both in terms of overall number of seizures and their value.
coding occur and that as a result these numbers may be over- or understated.
forfeited firearms are transferred to the Department for official use.
seizures that may have resulted in criminal, civil, and administrative forfeiture.
These numbers reflect the total value of assets that are coded as “Cash/Currency” in CATS.
may be over- or understated.
drug proceeds in excess of $100,000.
seizures which may have resulted in criminal, civil, and administrative forfeiture.
property to the federal government, or declines forfeiture and returns the asset.
parties can petition the seizing agency to return the administratively forfeited asset.
received a claim or a petition.
and greater than $100,000 in Tables 4 and 5.
seizures returned to state authorities for potential state seizure).
The MLARS rules on petitions for cases in which a civil or criminal forfeiture has occurred.
value is not yet available for the full population of assets seized between FYs 2007 and 2016.
returned to state authorities for potential state seizure).
the vast majority of which are in turn forfeited administratively.
can help the Department better understand and oversee its seizure activity.
forfeiture activities and its relationship with state and local law enforcement.
of the methodology of our review is in Appendix 1.
activity; thus, such seizures can present risks to civil liberties.
DOJ OIG, Cold Consent Encounters, ii.
significant risks to civil liberties.
seizures are being conducted appropriately.
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., H.R. 1658.
to demonstrate these connections in larger data sets.
reporting, compliance, and other matters.
agents we spoke with mentioned the general scenario that we detail in the text box.
until the government is ready to initiate a prosecution, which may happen well after the seizure.
confirmed that their agencies do not analyze aggregate data to monitor claims, petitions, or returns.
analyze this data but that may review it on an as-needed basis.
readily apparent than a DEA seizure made early during the course of an ongoing investigation.
DEA with its ongoing efforts to assess the effectiveness of its interdiction activities.
and illicit narcotics; however, we believe that this data was adequate for selecting our sample.
narcotics were present at the time of seizure.
but, when considered collectively, can be consistent with illegal cash couriering.
are conducted consistently. We discuss each of these three areas of concern below.
DOJ OIG, Cold Consent Encounters, i.
operation and the value of cash at seizure for our sample.
Note: We rounded Total Amount Seized values to the nearest tens of thousands.
the seminal Supreme Court case with respect to the legality and parameters of airport interdiction.
police dog sniff the vehicle in an attempt to identify narcotics residue.
sources about a known drug crime.
Confidential Source Program, Audit Report 16-33 (September 2016).
inside a travel neck pillow.
label with an inaccurate return address or that emitted an odor of illicit narcotics.
of probable cause to seize.
The DEA’s Interdiction Manual cites the 1921 Supreme Court Decision Burdeau v.
v. Rodriguez, 596 F. 2d 169, 173 (6th Cir. 1979).
Type of Enforcement Operation                   Criminal Investigation?
whether they advanced or related to ongoing investigations at any time within 3 years after the seizure.
sampled seizures that advanced or were related to a criminal investigation.
generally made in the absence of preexisting intelligence of a specific drug crime.
parties, for entry into NADDIS.
the law enforcement benefit of a seizure.
question the owner or otherwise conduct any investigation (Case 1).
currency and DEA contact information inside the bag and the airline sent the bag to its final destination.
providing written notice of the seizure.
seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing a potential criminal investigation.
forfeiture proceeds came from the 19 cash seizures greater than $100,000.
demonstrate that the DEA is correctly targeting criminals when making seizures.
unduly onerous and unfair, especially when claimants contest low-value seizures.
a settlement, the government may return part of the seized property and forfeit the remainder.
Forfeiture, 1st ed. (March 2010) and 2nd ed. (November 2015).
that do and do not achieve their legitimate law enforcement objectives.
previously had been arrested for vehicle theft, firearms violations, and gambling violations.
— details that the task force officers believed to be suspicious or false.
seizure, a dog positively alerted to the presence of a controlled substance on the duffel bag.
officers, who denied the request.
she was transporting illegal narcotics and stated that she was carrying $500.
A task force officer asked the passenger whether he could search her purse, and she agreed.
that she was carrying a “little over $5,000” but that only $525 of it was hers.
later determined that the passenger was working for a known crack cocaine dealer.
decisions made during the course of seizure operations are arbitrary.
financial investigations, and money laundering.
commercial vendors that may teach aggressive search and seizure practices.
Assets Forfeiture Fund to hire any external training vendors.
training in all field divisions.
forfeiture knowledge as their Department partners.
always advance a federal criminal investigation or lead to federal prosecution.
federal forfeiture, apart from the public safety exception referenced above.
Note: We rounded monetary values to the nearest million.
investigation or lead to a prosecution.
which there is not an ongoing investigation precipitating or related to the seizure.
seizures that do and do not achieve their legitimate law enforcement objectives.
ensure federal forfeiture is used appropriately.
enough information to determine the precise level of involvement of DEA agents.
review seizures occurring after the issuance of the Attorney General’s Order and Policy Directive 15-2.
law enforcement nationwide during this time.
and tribal law enforcement agencies.
to attempt to determine the effects of the Department’s decision to limit adoptions.
State of Nebraska v. Franco, 257 Neb. 15, 594 N.W.2d 633 (1999).
physically seized by a federal agent. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1463.01 (2016).
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75D-5, 90-112; State v. Jones, 158, N.C. App. 465 (2003).
had a measurable impact on drug enforcement in those two states.
event and unlikely to contribute to a criminal investigation, be it state or federal.
negative impact it may have on law enforcement cooperation.
organizations and deter illegal behavior by taking the profit incentive out of crime.
charging the owner with a crime and without any court involvement or review.
organizations and that they do not present a potential risk to civil liberties.
law enforcement activities, we reviewed a judgmental sample of DEA cash seizures.
of the Department’s cash seizures between FY 2007 and FY 2016.
criminal investigation or lead to a prosecution.
and/or training is needed to ensure consistency in seizure operations.
conduct or participate in federal seizures.
mitigate any negative effects on law enforcement cooperation.
occur, and as a result these numbers may be overstated or understated.
during that period, we conducted the majority of our site visits at DEA locations.
evaluates their benefits to law enforcement.
capabilities of their investigative agencies’ case management systems.
their role in administering CATS.
U.S. Attorneys who are responsible for asset forfeiture in their respective U.S.
in a seizure has been sufficient to justify federal forfeiture.
occurring after the issuance of the Attorney General’s Order and related guidance.
of guidance are currently affecting seizure activities.
and selected a random sub-sample of 100 seizures to evaluate further.
advanced or were related to a criminal investigation.
activities that occurred during the 3 full years following the seizure.
necessary to close the recommendations below.
one of the Department’s most significant areas of risk in its cash seizure activity.
of the Department’s cash seizures, most of which result in administrative forfeiture.
investigation — reviewing case-specific narrative information about each seizure.
advanced or related to an investigation.
$1 million over 5 years.
were generally transportation or parcel interdiction seizures.
forfeiture related to an administrative forfeiture, we observed that U.S.
purpose of resolving a claim initiated by a property owner.
that we examined has no identifiable connection to criminal investigations.
describe the amount of forfeiture proceeds that are returned to victims of crime.
related to fraud investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
report we reported this figure as $46,000.
proceeds of that property as a funding mechanism for law enforcement operations.
discuss the actions necessary to close the recommendations.
advance or are related to federal investigations.
and forfeiture advanced a later criminal investigation.
seizing property for a purpose other than deterring and punishing criminal behavior.
forfeiture authorities are used appropriately.
efforts; and any claims, petitions, and returns of assets resulting from a seizure.
It is unclear whether the Criminal Division concurs with this recommendation.
are related to federal investigations.
outcomes in the two instances that the OIG provided is not realistic.
needed to ensure consistency in seizure operations.
before they conduct or participate in federal seizures.
be developed to assist with remediation and reinforcement.
and seek to mitigate any negative effects on law enforcement cooperation.
limited to, possible new methodologies for determining equitable sharing payments.

References: v.

 § 881
 v.

 v. 
 § 28
 v.