FASCISM Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man's Life Savings Were Seized at Airport

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________

A class-action lawsuit is now challenging the DEA's habit of seizing large amounts of cash from travelers without evidence of any crime.

Terrence Rolin kept his life savings in a Tupperware container, but all that money now belongs to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), even though the 79-year-old retired railroad engineer hasn't been charged with a crime.

When Rolin's daughter, Rebecca Brown, tried to take her fathers' savings—$82,373 in cash—on an airplane, a DEA agent seized it simply because large amounts of cash are considered suspicious by the agency.

Brown and Rolin are now the lead plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, challenging the DEA and TSA's practice of seizing large amounts of cash from airline passengers without any evidence of any underlying crime.

"Flying with any amount of cash is completely legal, but once again we see government agents treating American citizens like criminals," Institute for Justice senior attorney Dan Alban said in a press release. "You don't forfeit your constitutional rights when you try to board an airplane. It is time for TSA and federal law enforcement to stop seizing cash from travelers simply because the government considers certain amounts of cash 'suspicious.'"

Rolin and Brown's trouble started last August. Rolin had asked his daughter to take his money and open a joint savings account, the Washington Post reports:

Rebecca Brown was catching a flight home from the Pittsburgh airport early the next day and said she didn't have time to stop at a bank. She confirmed on a government website that it's legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.
But just minutes before departure in late August, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent met her at the busy gate and questioned her about the cash, which showed up on a security scan. He insisted Brown put Rolin on the phone to confirm her story. Brown said Rolin, who is suffering mental decline, was unable to verify some details.
"He just handed me the phone and said, 'Your stories don't match,'" Brown recalled the agent saying. "'We're seizing the cash.'"
The DEA then notified Brown that it was seeking to permanently forfeit Rolin's life savings. Neither Rolin or Brown have been charged with a crime.

In the meantime, the lawsuit says the loss of Rolin's savings has left him unable to fix his truck, which is his primary means of transportation, or get needed dental work.

"My father and his parents worked hard for this money, and the government shouldn't be able to reach into his pocket and take it," Brown said a press release. "We did nothing wrong and haven't been charged with any crime, yet the DEA is trying to take my father's life savings. His savings should be returned right away, and the government should stop taking money from Americans who are doing something completely legal."

In cases like Brown's, the DEA seizes cash using civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows police to seize cash and property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not charged with a crime.

Federal, state, and local law enforcement seize millions of dollars in cash every year in drug interdiction operations, much of being transported along highways and through airports. In 2016, a USA Today investigation found the DEA seized more than $209 million from at least 5,200 travelers in 15 major airports over the previous decade.

Police groups say civil forfeiture is a vital tool that allows them to disrupt drug trafficking by targeting its illicit proceeds.

However, civil liberties groups say there are few safeguards to protect innocent owners, who bear the burden of challenging the seizure to get their property back.

The Institute for Justice lawsuit claims the DEA has a practice or policy of seizing currency from travelers at U.S. airports without probable cause simply if the dollar amount is greater than $5,000. This practice, the suit argues, violates travelers' Fourth Amendment rights.

In 2016, Reason profiled the case of Charles Clarke, a college student who was robbed of $11,000 dollars at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport by a local police officer who was deputized by the DEA. The officer claimed Clarke's suitcase smelled like marijuana, although no drugs were found in it. Clarke, helped by the Institute for Justice, got his money back in an agreement with the Justice Department.

A 2017 report by the Justice Department Inspector General found that the DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the previous decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.

The report reviewed 100 cash seizures and found that only 44 of those were connected to or advanced a criminal investigation. The majority of seizures occurred in airports, train stations, and bus terminals, where the DEA regularly snoops on travel records and maintains a network of travel industry employees who act as confidential informants.

A 2016 Justice Department Inspector General report chastised the DEA for recruiting a TSA screener as an informant and promising the screener a cut of the proceeds from forfeited cash that he discovered.

A DEA spokesperson, per the agency's policy, declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
 

zeker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
a 'report' was filed when I was leaving BC to go to Ontario

no international borders were crossed

I had $10k on my person

it was never confiscated

but the agent told me

"good luck getting on a plane in the future"

I never have gone by plane again

I had showed the agent my paperwork for my house being sold the day b4

he said

"that's my lawyer too" (small town)
 

Texican

Live Free & Die Free.... God Freedom Country....
This needs to be ended and all monies returned if a felony conviction is not made....

Note that the TSA agent gets a cut of the funds seized.... Why would agents get to keep any money that they seize????

Texican....
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
They'll get their money back after three years of litigation and $60,000 in lawyer's fees.

And, the gov't will offer to give the man 40% of his money, and be offended when he doesn't instantly fall on his knees blubbering in gratitude about what a generous deal they gave him.

Asset forfeitures are high on the list of reasons why, when CW2 comes, plenty of people's reactions to seeing a known government employee's house burn, will be to get lawn chairs and marshmallows.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
Good!

I hope they win big.

This is theft pure and simple and someone SHOULD go to jail for it... :rolleyes:

While I agree with you 100%, case law has almost all been that the cops can just grab whatever they want, and TS if you're innocent. The "fee" for their trouble in returning the money they steal from you tends to be about how much was the amount of money they swiped. :mad:
 

pauldingbabe

The Great Cat
This needs to be ended and all monies returned if a felony conviction is not made....

Note that the TSA agent gets a cut of the funds seized.... Why would agents get to keep any money that they seize????

Texican....

Most confidential informants get 10% if memory serves.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
While I agree with you 100%, case law has almost all been that the cops can just grab whatever they want, and TS if you're innocent. The "fee" for their trouble in returning the money they steal from you tends to be about how much was the amount of money they swiped. :mad:

I know...

That's why I put the "rolleyes" after saying someone should go to jail... The translation is hard to read...

Even though we want to see justice, we all know how it plays out...
 

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
Can you imagine what it must be like to be 79 years old and watch some smug government lacky walk off with your hard earned savings? Leaving you empty handed with only poverty to look forward to. Knowing you had done absolutely nothing wrong?

This law is being grossly abused by those entrusted with the authority to use it or not. May God judge them and the ones who voted this evil into existence. May those with the power to repeal this evil also feel the weight of his judgement. May God's wisdom and justice prevail.
 
Last edited:

dero50

Veteran Member
At his age he probably didn't trust banks and kept it himself!!!!!! But it's there way or the highway, and they laugh all the way to the bank. It's cruel.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Well, certainly they should get their money back, but gotta admit, it was more than a little clueless (read STUPID) for the daughter to plan to go through security at the airport and NOT get hassled carrying that much cash.

A little forethought (or research) avoids a whole world of problems.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
Well, certainly they should get their money back, but gotta admit, it was more than a little clueless (read STUPID) for the daughter to plan to go through security at the airport and NOT get hassled carrying that much cash.

A little forethought (or research) avoids a whole world of problems.

She did. This is in the first post:

Rebecca Brown was catching a flight home from the Pittsburgh airport early the next day and said she didn't have time to stop at a bank. She confirmed on a government website that it's legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.
But just minutes before departure in late August, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent met her at the busy gate and questioned her about the cash, which showed up on a security scan. He insisted Brown put Rolin on the phone to confirm her story. Brown said Rolin, who is suffering mental decline, was unable to verify some details.
"He just handed me the phone and said, 'Your stories don't match,'" Brown recalled the agent saying. "'We're seizing the cash.'"
 

Luddite

Veteran Member
She did. This is in the first post:

Rebecca Brown was catching a flight home from the Pittsburgh airport early the next day and said she didn't have time to stop at a bank. She confirmed on a government website that it's legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.
But just minutes before departure in late August, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent met her at the busy gate and questioned her about the cash, which showed up on a security scan. He insisted Brown put Rolin on the phone to confirm her story. Brown said Rolin, who is suffering mental decline, was unable to verify some details.
"He just handed me the phone and said, 'Your stories don't match,'" Brown recalled the agent saying. "'We're seizing the cash.'"
That is the problem. Been discussed before. The poor old guy (pun intended) didn't say exactly the right things to the goobermint a$$hat. Subjective determination by such a$$hat allowed the procedure to commence. If poor old guy "said the right things" and "their stories matched" would she have been allowed to go free on her way? Doubtful.

Innocent until proven guilty MEANT something for a reason!
 
Last edited:

Marthanoir

TB Fanatic
She did. This is in the first post:

Rebecca Brown was catching a flight home from the Pittsburgh airport early the next day and said she didn't have time to stop at a bank. She confirmed on a government website that it's legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.
But just minutes before departure in late August, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent met her at the busy gate and questioned her about the cash, which showed up on a security scan. He insisted Brown put Rolin on the phone to confirm her story. Brown said Rolin, who is suffering mental decline, was unable to verify some details.
"He just handed me the phone and said, 'Your stories don't match,'" Brown recalled the agent saying. "'We're seizing the cash.'"


Ask the government for advice on government corruption, that'll end well,
20 seconds on the internet would have given her enough horror stories to know not to bother.
 

Luddite

Veteran Member
Don't walk straight into a buzzsaw - even though people tell you it's safe.
Can't argue with that. Given enough exposure, most people hate government. Except the clueless among us and government workers. Always remember that with friends and family besmirched by either affliction.
 

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Can't argue with that. Given enough exposure, most people hate government. Except the clueless among us and government workers. Always remember that with friends and family besmirched by either affliction.

I might know too many of the wrong people, so a skewed perspective/experience, but Old Ben's philosophy of avoiding Imperial entanglements is always Rule #1.

Added: This lady was in for another world of shit when she walked into any bank with that kind of cash.

If I was in the situation:

#1-) Be pissed at the old man for saddling me with the mess he made by hording that much cash.

#2-) Visit my lawyer to find out the best way to manage getting it deposited without ending up in the slammer.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
She confirmed on a government website that it's legal to carry any amount of cash on a domestic flight and tucked the money in her carry-on.
Then she was criminally stupid. Carry-on bags get robbed all the time. Woman is an imbecile. She should have setup a wire transfer to their home bank. The money would’ve been waiting for them. Stupid. Beyond stupid.
 

vessie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
While I agree with you 100%, case law has almost all been that the cops can just grab whatever they want, and TS if you're innocent. The "fee" for their trouble in returning the money they steal from you tends to be about how much was the amount of money they swiped. :mad:

Like driving on I-40 in and around the Nashville, Tn. are when you have out of state license plates on your vehicle.

Those are the Only vehicles I see the TSP stopping a care.

When it's just vehicles with Tn. plates, those people will whiz right by the cops going over 80 mph and the cops just sit there on the side of the road doing nothing. V
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
And, the gov't will offer to give the man 40% of his money, and be offended when he doesn't instantly fall on his knees blubbering in gratitude about what a generous deal they gave him.

Asset forfeitures are high on the list of reasons why, when CW2 comes, plenty of people's reactions to seeing a known government employee's house burn, will be to get lawn chairs and marshmallows.

I would have thought it to be throw the employee into the fire.....I must have missed something there.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
Like driving on I-40 in and around the Nashville, Tn. are when you have out of state license plates on your vehicle.

Those are the Only vehicles I see the TSP stopping a care.

When it's just vehicles with Tn. plates, those people will whiz right by the cops going over 80 mph and the cops just sit there on the side of the road doing nothing. V

Two reasons for that.

1) possible confiscation
2) people will pay the ticket with less fuss if they are out of state.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
When the program (asset forfeiture) was being started, I inadvertently went on a job interview to work for a "contractor" being used by that agency.

There were several people in the interview and when they explained what the program actually was going to be, I didn't actually blurt out "That's Just Plain Evil" but I know it was written all over my face.

Needless to say, I did not get that job (nor did I want it) but about a month later I got a call from one of the men in the background of that interview who was from a different agency, he asked me to come into interview for His agency and I did get that job (and it was a real civil service position).

I like to think that as an LDS Elder, my new boss had the same basic reaction I did to "asset forfeiture" without trials or even warrants.

He did say "I asked you to come in an apply because I liked what I saw of you in the previous interview."

I don't call many things evil but this is.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
I'd not be surprised if somewhere in the fine print it says that all post 1964 FRN$ belong to the Feral Government to begin with. No matter what reason (if any) is given, the lawsuit will be fruitless.
 
Top