ILNews

Forfeiture of money to FBI allowed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man whose $12,000 was seized following an arrest after a traffic stop wasn't entitled to get his money back from the FBI because the organization properly followed the rules, and even went above typical forfeiture proceedings in an attempt to inform the man of the seized money.

In James E. Turner v. Attorney General of the United States of America, 4:05-CV-0081-PRC, James Turner pro se filed a motion in 2005 in an attempt to get back the seized funds. The money was confiscated from the driver of a car Turner was a passenger in, and the driver told police the $12,000 was Turner's money. The Newton County Prosecutor filed a motion to transfer the seized property to the FBI under forfeiture proceedings per 21 U.S.C. Section 881. Turner posted bond after the arrest, and a warrant was issued for his arrest for failure to appear. He was later taken into federal custody for several drug trafficking offenses unrelated to his arrest in Newton County.

In Turner's complaint, he alleges no formal notice of the forfeiture was filed or presented to him and that the FBI should have known he was in federal custody at the time the organization mailed notices to him of the administrative forfeiture proceedings.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, dismissed the case, holding Turner was estopped from asserting the claim because the statute of limitations had expired. The 7th Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case.

Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry granted the FBI's motion to dismiss Turner's complaint Sept. 29, finding the FBI took reasonable steps and met the constitutional standard of due process in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust, Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950), to provide Turner with notice.

The FBI sent written notice to Turner regarding his opportunity to object to the forfeiture proceedings by certified mail to two different residential addresses but both notices were returned. The FBI also sent a copy of the notice to the attorney who represented Turner in the Newton County misdemeanor case, but the attorney replied that he didn't represent Turner. The FBI published notice of its intention to claim the property in The New York Times for three consecutive weeks.

Those actions were enough to meet the constitutional standards; however, in this case, the FBI went above those actions by searching the National Crime Information Center database, which didn't show Turner was in federal custody at the time of the search. The database only showed his failure to appear in Newton County. There was always the possibility that an arresting agency failed to report or delayed reporting the arrest in the NCIC, which happened in this case.

This case is notable because the FBI was unaware he was in federal custody and took additional efforts to locate Turner in order to provide him notice when it learned its first efforts to notify him failed, wrote the magistrate judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT