One balmy day in March 2021, Brian Moore, a rapper in the making, packed his bags in Atlanta for a journey to Los Angeles. He had for an objective, the creation of a music video, a springboard he envisaged would propel his music career. The financial scaffolding for the film was $8,500 in cash he carried, a legacy left behind by his deceased grandfather. However, federal narcotics agents halted Moore’s ambition, impounding his financial resource on nebulous suspicion linking it to illicit drug trade.
This episode exposes the significance of judicial safeguards against potential hazards of civil forfeiture. This legal apparatus allows law enforcement bodies to augment their coffers by appropriating purportedly crime-related assets without necessarily presenting criminal charges, let alone securing a conviction. Seen by revenue-driven law enforcement bodies as intrinsically questionable, no law prohibits the carriage of enormous amounts of cash.
In an attempt to substantiate its claims, the government declared that a narcotics-detection dog ‘alerted’ to Moore’s cash. Yet, this is less incriminating than it appears, given that studies show most American currency bears traces of illegal substances such as cocaine. The flimsiness of the government’s confirmation forced it to withdraw the case once Moore contested the seizure in federal court.
Although Moore eventually got his money back, he paid thousands of dollars as legal fees. It wasn’t until the last week that the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that he had a rightful claim to reimbursement for the expenses incurred. Unlike those enmeshed in criminal trials, people in Moore’s situation targeted by a civil forfeiture have no entitlement to a state-funded attorney, and this perhaps clarifies why they often surrender without contesting.
It’s approximated that over nine-tenths of federal civil forfeiture cases get settled without the need for a judicial resolution. The process involved in contesting a civil forfeiture is intricate and intimidating, almost unnavigable without legal representation. Yet the expense associated with engaging a legal representative usually exceeds the worth of the seized asset, thus victims effectively incur losses even amidst victories.
This predicament led the Congress to pass the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in 2000. The Act stipulates that ‘the United States shall be answerable for reasonable attorney fees’ anytime ‘a property owner considerably prevails’ in a federal forfeiture case. However, when Moore reclaimed his money and asked for a $15,000 compensation for his legal team, US District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. concluded he did not qualify for remuneration under the CAFRA as he had not satisfied the necessary conditions.
The adverse judgment based on Moore’s contingency-fee agreement with his counsel meant he would forfeit one-third of the recovered amount. Nevertheless, with the pro bono assistance from the Institute for Justice, Moore fought back, appealing against Judge Thrash’s ruling.
Eventually, a three-jurist panel from the 11th Circuit unanimously deduced that Judge Thrash had misinterpreted the CAFRA. The shaky ground on which the government’s winning chances were based led the Justice Department to request the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice, permanently barring any future attempts to impound his cash.
The 11th Circuit leaned on the judicially approved outcome to infer Moore had ‘substantially prevail(ed)’. A senior attorney stated, ‘We’re delighted to witness Brian get back on his feet after long-drawn-out litigation. However, his ordeal brings to the fore the unjust civil forfeiture tactics deployed by the federal government.’ The system’s current state can see them litigate against the property owner for years and then opt-out voluntarily when the government’s defeat is imminent.
The attorney further noted, ‘Without the chance to recoup their legal fees, most property owners lack the financial capacity to protect their property from forfeiture,’ a state of affairs that underscored the need for ‘critical protections for property rights’ that Congress ratified in 2000.
Moore expressed his relief: ‘It’s a huge weight lifted to learn the court agrees I ought to recover all my money.’ Despite the inability of the government to articulate his wrongdoing and its decision to abandon the case, he would still have found himself thousands of dollars lighter. Moore, however, remains hopeful that his win can form a blueprint for others to attain justice without having to sacrifice financially.
The post Rapper’s Cash Seized In Controversial Civil Forfeiture Case appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
