Forfeiture of Contraband is Big Money in Texas
I've noticed a big increase in cash forfeitures by west Texas law enforcement in the last few months. Mitchell County District Attorney investigators recently seized 2.7 million dollars in cellophane- wrapped bills from two men stopped on "traffic" by a local Texas Department of Public Safety trooper. In the same week, another stop was made in Hudspeth County where over $850,000 was seized at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint. An earlier Mitchell County highway stop resulted in the seizure and later forfeiture of over 9 million dollars in cash.
The two occupants of the automobile in the later Mitchell County arrest spent a brief period in the Mitchell County Jail before being released without charges being filed. Although Money Laundering is both a state and a federal offense, it is not unusual for the locals to turn the driver and passenger loose and keep the cash. Potential prosecution and imprisonment is sufficient incentive for the automobile's occupants to walk away from the automobile and its contraband.
The money is then subject to forfeiture in a separate civil action brought by the District Attorney against the money or the car or both. The case to be filed will then read: "The State of Texas v. $2,750,000.00 in United States Currency."
As for the passengers and driver, they will soon have troubles of their own; such as telling the bad news to the owners of the seized dough.
Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Forfeiture of "Contraband"-- defined as property used in the commission of a long list of felonies set forth in the code, as well as another laundry list of misdemeanors, as well as a "Crime of violence."
In Texas, the State must prove that the property is subject to forfeiture by establishing that the property is contraband as set forth in the Code. Before seizing property thought to be subject to forfeiture, the State has to show probable cause. Probable cause in the forfeiture statutes is a reasonable belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity set forth in the statute.
Thus, probable cause to seize such property is not the same as the probable cause necessary for the lawful search, lawful arrest, or lawful search incident to arrest as set forth in the statute. Rather, the substantial connection must be shown after the legality of the search itself is tested.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the nation, both state and federal, are aggressively utilizing these forfeiture statutes to pile up billions of dollars in seizures from private citizens, many of whom were not present at the time of the alleged offense leading to the forfeitures, nor had any knowledge of any crimes being committed.
This process has led to a great deal of controversy, such as the recent uproar caused by the seizure of property by police in Tenaha, Texas.
