WRAL Investigates

Crime-fighting tool or legal robbery? NC law agencies rely on controversial program

Posted January 29, 2015
Updated January 30, 2015

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Every year, North Carolina law enforcement officers seize millions of dollars in cash, homes and other property from residents under a controversial program that allows officers to take the property even if the person hasn’t been charged with a crime.

North Carolina law doesn't allow police to take property unless it's part of a criminal case. To get around the law, many agencies turn to a federal program called equitable sharing.

In most cases, it starts with a traffic stop. If an officer finds a large amount of cash and thinks it's tied to drugs, for example, the officer takes the money and asks a federal agency to adopt the case. In nine out of 10 cases, if it's federally adopted, the driver will never see the cash again, with most of the money staying with local police.

Officers say the seizures are a valuable crime-fighting tool, but opponents say it's a system ripe for abuse.

Richard Oakley, owner of The Train Station, a bar and restaurant in Cary, was one of the people caught in the middle of the equitable sharing program. His restaurant was one of nearly 200 businesses targeted as part of an illegal gambling operation linked to video poker machines last spring.

A video showed state Alcohol Law Enforcement agents raid his business. They took machines and all of the money in the restaurant, about $7,000, in a process called civil forfeiture, which North Carolina law doesn’t allow.

“It crushed me that day. I didn’t even have change to give a customer,” Oakley said. “Eight guys walking around with guns and badges smashing, literally, a machine open in the middle of my dining room. It was insanity.”

Defense attorney Damon Chetson is a critic of civil forfeiture.

“It’s a roundabout way the government seeks to take money from folks to impoverish them and also to penalize them,” he said. “People don’t know about this system until it actually happens to them, and they’re asking themselves, ‘How do we live in America where the police can just come along and seize money, cars, assets from me without any definitive proof that I’m guilty of anything?’”

It's that sentiment that convinced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to issue an order on Jan. 16 putting more restrictions on police seizing assets. But there is still plenty of gray area in the order.

One example is a case out of Harnett County. Deputies involved in a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency task force seized $130,000 from Kenneth Lamont Clark during two traffic stops on Feb. 26, 2013, and March 12, 2014. He said the money was from the strip club he manages.

Deputies say their K9's alerted to drugs, but they didn't charge Clark with any crimes. After more than a year, Clark got money back from one of the traffic stops but is still fighting for $98,699 taken in the other stop.

“Mr. Clark's case is a textbook example of innocent business owners with cash intensive businesses being deprived of their lawfully obtained property upon the pretext of violating the law without any credible evidence,” Clark’s attorney, Abdulhakim Saadiq, said in a statement.

Since the deputy involved in Clark’s traffic stop is also part of a DEA task force, the seizure was and still is legal.

“As any attorney will tell you, there’s no guarantee you’ll get that money back, even if you’re completely innocent,” Chetson said.

Federal agents also seized a house from a Durham woman in January 2014, even though her son was arrested and convicted of dealing drugs. Agents tried to take the house because the suspect, Mark Ford, admitted to selling drugs out of the house. After a lengthy process, Mary Ford was among the lucky ones. She got her home back because she proved she had no knowledge of her son’s actions.

Thomas Walker, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, acknowledges that forfeitures of criminal proceeds "tremendously benefit local law enforcement." But, he said, "this new policy further ensures that additional safeguards are in place to continue to use of this powerful tool."

However, the full effects of the policy change "are still being analyzed and yet to be determined," state Commissioner of Law Enforcement Greg Baker said in a statement.

"The most significant change appears to be when local law enforcement agencies seize assets in cases without any federal investigative involvement," Baker said. "This is a very important process by which legally seized, illicitly gained assets derived from criminal activity can be forfeited and returned to support law enforcement efforts across the nation."

Since equitable sharing began, North Carolina law enforcement has seized $130 million in assets, the fifth most of any state. Of that money, local agencies kept about 80 percent. Because it is civil forfeiture, the owner of the money must prove it's not tied to illegal activity.

WRAL Investigates requested equitable sharing annual reports from several local agencies. Last fiscal year, Raleigh police had more than $2 million in its equitable sharing funds account. Police spokesman Jim Sughrue says, unlike a lot of civil forfeiture cases, most of the agency's seized assets were part of criminal investigations, not simply police suspicions.

The agency spent nearly $900,000 on training, electronics, weapons and building improvements, ending the year with more than $1 million left over.

The North Carolina State Highway Patrol got $1 million from the justice department and spent most of it, about $609,000, on communications and computers.

Equitable sharing funds by agency

please wait

WRAL Investigates reached out to several local, state and federal agencies for interviews, but all declined.

Eddie Caldwell, executive vice president and general counsel of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association, says the program has several benefits – taking money away from people engaging in illegal activity, saving taxpayer money and helping the law protect people.

“In some agencies, they use the funding to pay for overtime for officers or to put extra officers on the street to buy equipment,” he said.

Durham police spent some of its money on the American Tobacco Trail Initiative after a series of attacks. The Granville sheriff spent $214,000 for new patrol vehicles.

Caldwell defends the program and says he doesn’t believe it lends itself to government overreach.

“The laws we’re talking about were enacted by Congress and not law enforcement,” he said. “Law enforcement is not out to seize assets from law-abiding citizens, but they are out to seize assets from criminals.”

Defense attorney Chetson says he believes most officers are trying to do the right thing, but he still has concerns about the program.

“Most officers are out there doing their jobs. They’re honest, acting in good faith, but even officers acting in good faith can get swept into this program because of the incentives behind it,” Chetson said. “While we all agree that criminals should be prosecuted, innocent people are getting caught up in this scheme.”

As in Oakley's case, because the raid was part of a joint investigation with federal agents, seizing his money was allowed.

“To me, they just legally robbed me,” Oakley said.

North Carolina is one of the only states in the country that doesn't allow civil forfeiture. With Attorney General Holder's changes to the federal program, law agencies are in danger of losing tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The question is whether anyone will lobby lawmakers to get them to legalize civil forfeiture in the state.

162 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • NotLiberal Feb 2, 2015

    Funny wral calls this an investigation when in fact its a drive by shooting.

  • Alexia Proper Jan 30, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    If it can be proven that the person is violating the law, then requiring fines or requiring forfeiture are options the government has. The problem, though, is that there are numerous examples where money or property was seized where there is no evidence and, in some cases, no charges filed.

    What I oppose is the process. If a person cannot be proven to be guilty in court of having received money or property through illegal activities, then that money or property should not be subject to civil forfeiture.

  • REPUBLICAN HANS Jan 30, 2015

    View quoted thread


    You do realize that the majority of these people that have money seized from them have extensive drug histories and no legitimate source of income, correct?

  • Alexia Proper Jan 30, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Define civil. If they are taking money, then there must be a crime, thus a criminal case.

    The laws to which you refer were targeting specific crimes and the scope of the law was very restricted to importing goods, I think. Anyway, I don't think it was so broad that a person walking down the street with $10,000 in his pocket would have to hand it over to an officer because he thinks the money might be ill-gotten without a shred of proof and without a criminal charge.

    There is an appropriate process, including arrest, charges, and trial. Authorities can hold property until the trial concludes. Nobody objects to reasonable procedures of law. But, many of these cases amount to theft and one has to spend his own money to recover his lawful possessions.

    You don't see a problem with how this is being abused?

  • Alexia Proper Jan 30, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    They apparently are. If you have not read the news stories going to the Washington Post and other news agencies, then perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.

    There have been many instances where money was taken when the accusations and reasons for taking the money were entirely baseless. In some instances, the person who lost his or her money was able to get it back, minus fees to pay a lawyer to fight the system.

    If the system was fair and just, charges would be filed and anything taken held until guilt is proven. In many instances, they're not even filing charges! What do you call that? That's just taking whatever you like in hopes the person does not have the resources to fight it.

  • Imma Annoid Jan 30, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    It is not a civil case when the government takes property without due process.

  • REPUBLICAN HANS Jan 30, 2015

    View quoted thread


    Frankly, you do not know what you are talking about. No one is "taking whatever money the officer wants to take"...

  • NotLiberal Jan 30, 2015

    View quoted thread


    You are wasting your time. The majority of those here can't seem to understand this is a civil case, with different proof, that has been in use since approximately 1787. Apparently they want the lawyers to get richer and the criminals to have a nest egg for when they get out of prison.

  • Alexia Proper Jan 30, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    I don't think people here hate police, nor are they advocating empowering criminals will ill-gain property.

    However, there is a justice system will well-defined procedures for bringing charges and having a trial wherein the State must prove that a person is guilty. In the case of guilt, then punishment can (and does) come in various forms, including jail, fines, forfeiture, etc.

    What you appear to be advocating is throwing the legitimate justice system out the window and taking whatever property the officer wants to take. That's not right. It should be illegal and, legal or not, it is absolutely immoral.

  • REPUBLICAN HANS Jan 30, 2015

    Everyone please look on the bottom of page three. I have already highlighted the requirements for a successful adoption by the federal government. No the police can't just seize 10,000 dollars you gained from selling your Mustang from your console because it's there; chances are you would have a bill of sale. It's not "highway robbery", it is an important law enforcement tool that Holder put an end to in the name of "flexing" for his colleagues.

More...