AP Wire | 06/11/2004 | Money seizure in Lincoln County raises questions
about state lawSunherald (Mississippi):
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/8900481.htm

Posted on Fri, Jun. 11, 2004

Money seizure in Lincoln County raises questions about state law

SCOTT TYNES

Associated Press


BROOKHAVEN, Miss. - The seizure of $27,000 by the Lincoln County Sheriff's
Department during a traffic stop in March has raised questions about the
scope of the state's asset forfeiture laws.

The money, which has since been returned to the owners, was seized during a
routine stop on Interstate 55 when a deputy found it in a plastic bag in the
vehicle's trunk. A thorough search of the vehicle after the discovery failed
to find any controlled substances or illegal contraband, but deputies took
the money under the state's money-laundering statute.

The statute passed by the Mississippi Legislature in 1998 allows law
enforcement officers to seize cash - even without the presence of illegal
substances - if they suspect the money was generated through unlawful
activity. It does not specify how long a law enforcement agency can hold the
funds.

The vehicle was occupied by Palestinian immigrants Atiya Saleh and Shareer
Quattom and Jordanian immigrant Majed Atta, all of New Orleans, who claimed
the money originated from a business transaction.

Saleh and Quattom had sold a grocery store in New Orleans to Atta earlier in
the day, and the $27,000 was part of the down payment, Saleh said. They said
they did not deposit the money in a bank because it would be used the next
day as part of a down payment on a gasoline station.

Lincoln County Sheriff Wiley Calcote questioned that account.

"The only document they had was that they had sold one store and were buying
another store, but there was nothing tying the money to that transaction,
and they gave conflicting information about the amount and origin of the
money," Calcote said.

The three men were traveling to Jackson to help Atta move his belongings to
New Orleans when they were stopped in Lincoln County for a traffic
violation. The three gave permission for the vehicle to be searched, and the
money was found.

The men said they were handcuffed and forced to stand on the side of the
road for several hours before being taken to the county jail, where the
three said they were strip-searched.

They were released after several hours of questioning, but the sheriff's
office refused to release the money, pending further investigation.

A careless driving citation was the only charge levied against any of the
men.

Calcote said the investigation was turned over to the Internal Revenue
Service early in the case, because they had more resources they could devote
to it.

Saleh has a theory of his own.

"My own belief is that they were trying to convince the IRS that it was a
good seizure, and they could keep the money, but they couldn't get enough
evidence that it was not legitimate," Saleh said.

Calcote and Capt. Dustin Bairfield, one of the investigating officers, said
the money would not have stayed in Lincoln County regardless of the
investigation's outcome.

"Under the money laundering statute, the money goes to the state treasurer,"
Bairfield said. "We would not have received a dime of it under state law."

Assistant District Attorney Robert Byrd agreed.

"That's a relatively new law, and there's only been one case that has gone
to the Supreme Court," he said. "There's been very little case law to
further define that law."

Byrd said only money seized in conjunction with drugs is returned to law
enforcement agencies.

Eighty percent of the money seized in drug cases under the state asset
forfeiture laws is returned to the agency that made the arrest, with 20
percent going to the district attorney's office. In other cases, Byrd said,
such as when more than one agency is involved in the seizure, the money is
distributed differently.

Calcote said his office acted according to state law.

"As long as it's still under investigation and (the investigation) is moving
forward, (the money) can be held," Calcote said. "You can't just sit on (the
case) for a year and not do anything with it, but (the money) can be held as
long as it's being investigated."

The federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000 requires the government to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used to
commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was involved in the
commission of a crime. Law agencies must show there was a substantial
connection between the property and the crime.

The law also allows property owners to sue the government for compensation
for damage to their property if they prevail in civil forfeiture actions.

Bairfield said the $27,000 was released as soon as the IRS gave its
approval. The final documentation needed to prove the money's legitimacy
arrived two weeks ago from the men's attorney and was forwarded to the IRS.

Bairfield admits he told the men he thought the case would be resolved in
about 10 days, but he said he did not realize it would take the IRS a month
to even look at the case.

"They were informed that their money would be returned to them if it all
checked out and was found to be legitimate money," Calcote said.

Saleh said he received the full $27,000 by check Tuesday.
---
Information from: The Daily Leader, http://www.dailyleader.com

******************************************************
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest
******************************************************