Imagine this: you’re walking along the side of the road and find a back-pack with $500,000 cash and some cryptic notes about how shipments were short a few grams here and there. You call the cops and report your find. They come, seize the backpack, remove and count the money… and then replace it to try to catch the actual owner picking it up… which they do.
But because the money was never in the bag when the accused bad guy/drug dealer/money launderer picked it up, he’s not found guilty of any money laundering crimes.
Normally, when money is found that’s tied to drug or illegal operations, by federal law the police department can seize and use the money as funding.
In this case, though… the woman that found it is asking that SHE get the money, under her state’s found-property law.
Putting the actual law aside for a moment (the only court to hear the issue ruled in favor of the woman, but the cops initially decided to appeal) what SHOULD happen here?
[bolding mine] Excuse me, this may be something of a hijack, but…
The police are allowed to keep seized assets for their own use? I find this a little surprising. Doesn’t this destroy objectivity and create a climate where the police are likely to create as many oppurtunities as they can to seize assets… especially if they consider themselves underfunded?
There are two laws that may be in tension with each other. The state’s found-property law says, in essence, “Anyone who finds property that is not unlawful to possess and for which the owner of which is unknown can claim it” after following certain procedures, like notifying the local cops first.
The fed’s drug money forfeiture law say, again in essence, that if money is seized and found to be substantially connected to the drug trade, the agency seizing it may keep it and use it.
As I said, the only judge to hear the case was a county court judge who ruled that the woman found the stash before any court found it to be drug-related, and that the federal law didn’t apply. The sheriif’s department who would have benefitted from the seizure had the decision gone the other way decided to appeal that decision. but then dropped the appeal and handed the money over. So the law, insofar as it’s spoken, sides with the woman, but it’s hardly a precedent-setting posture.
The property did not go unclaimed. They knew exactly who it belonged to and that person’s property was subject to forfeiture. However, the police should give the woman some sort of reward in this situation. I think the reward should be the entire amount otherwise we are enouraging people like her to just take the cash and evaporate with it instead of notifying and cooperating with police.
Interesting. Without knowing the exact details of either law, I think I’d side with the woman…as the drug money forfeiture law appears to contemplate, from your description of it, agency seizure of the drug money. In this instance, however, the agency – or rather, police department, as I’m assuming that “agency” above applies to state or federal law enforcement – didn’t per se seize the money; the woman found it and reported it. I think the state law applies far more closely than the federal law, unless one makes the argument that the owner of the money isn’t unknown, because he or she is “known” to be someone involved in the drug trade.
So as a matter of law, on the basis of what you’ve provided, I think the found money law wins out. But I still don’t think there’s any particular moral heft to either side of the question; I see nothing intrinsically “wrong” with the woman keeping the cash, nor with the police taking it for themselves.
Yup, and that’s assuming that the cops in question are well meaning. It gets worse if they are corrupt or bigoted; then these laws can be used to punish despised minorities ( whose property will always just happen to have a bit of cocaine or some other drug found in or on them ), or grab something the cop(s) want for themselves; a new car, for example.
So now, since it went to court there is a public record on file which discloses this woman’s name correct? If that was me I wouldn’t keep a cent of that cash, because the owner definitely knows who it belongs to and I’d think be inclined to get it back. Now the story gets out that I have it, what’s to protect me from torture happy drug dealers looking for their cash?
The woman reported the bag of cash knowing full well that the police would attempt to find the “rightful” owner and give the money back to them. Thus, she knew there was a good chance that she would not get to keep a penny of the money. This is always the case when you turn in found money.
In this case, that effort to find the owner was successful, they found the drug dealer. The drug dealer is the rightful owner of the money, until the government shows they have the right to seize it, then it becomes the government’s money. The woman only gets to keep it if the owner remains unidentified, she doesn’t get to keep it if the owner is just unworthy.
I remember reading about 3 years ago that an off-duty security guard for an NC Mall-Wart found in the store’s parking lot a picnic cooler in which was $70,000. He turned it in to the police and even after much publicity, they kept it “for their own use”.
The REAL ridiculous thing is you don’t even have to be CONVICTED to lose your stuff. They can come in, sue you, costs you $10,000 to prove you didn’t do anything wrong, and if you can’t do that, they get your shit.
No, because the rightful owner of the money in that case is the police department. The ability to claim found property in washington state appears to require that the actual owner be unknown.
I say that since the person finding the money didn’t commit a crime when finding the money, it should go to that person.
On the other hand, you don’t EVAH want to piss off a drug dealer. When you find money on the side of the road that has all the earmarks of drug-deal-gone-wrong, you put your hands at the side of your face like blinders, say “la-la-la” really loud, and run away.
Actually, no, not quite. You are not required to prove you did nothing wrong. They are required to prove you did something wrong. Since it’s a civil proceeding, the burden of proof they are required to meet is the lower “preponderance of the evidence” rather than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. BUt the burden is NOT on you to prove your innocence.
If it was just some guy who lost his bag, should she keep the money then too? Or just when the guy is a criminal*?
When you turn in money to the police, you’re accepting the risk that you won’t get to keep the money, if they find the owner. In this case, they found the owner, so it should be pretty cut and dried.
*noting of course that this “drug dealer” wasn’t actually convicted of anything.
