What are the anti-gov. types feelings on the DEA?

[Skjellyfetti]

$900,000 seized by Feds with no evidence of crime.

Jabari Mosley brought a safe to Alabama Lock & Key and asked a locksmith to open it. The locksmith pried open the safe, found nearly $900,000 in cash inside and called the police, starting a legal fight by the Shelby County man to get his money back from federal drug agents.

Mosley has not been charged with any crime since the safe was opened in May. He says in a lawsuit that he didn't commit a crime and the money was unlawfully seized. Federal officials said there is probable cause to believe the money was connected to illegal drug activity, and so they can seize the money.

Six months since a crow bar was used to open the safe, Mosley is still trying to get his money back.

Mosley's attorneys on Tuesday filed an amended complaint against Alabama Lock & Key saying the company converted the contents of the safe to its own use by way of a private seizure and seeks $894,000 against the business.

Alabama Lock & Key officials also on Tuesday filed a request for a judge to dismiss Mosley's complaint, saying among other things that law enforcement, not the company, has possession of the money.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Mosley's attorney seem to agree on one thing: This is an unusual case.

"The case is a curiosity from beginning to the end," said Greg Borland, assistant special agent in charge of the DEA's Birmingham district office. "If I had $900,000 in a safe, I would know the combination ... or I would spend $30,000 on a welding class," he said.

In a letter to DEA attorneys July 12, Mosley's attorney Joel Dillard introduced the firm as representing Mosley "in what must be one of the most unusual seizures of currency that you will encounter in your career."

Efforts to reach Mosley or Dillard for comment were unsuccessful.

The locksmith who opened the safe declined comment Tuesday. A call to Alabama Lock & Key's attorney was not returned Tuesday.

According to a civil lawsuit filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in an attempt to have the money forfeited, the locksmith saw the money once the safe was opened on May 18, when Mosley said he had lost the combination. Mosley told him he didn't care if the safe was destroyed in trying to open it.

He also said the lock and key worker could "have one of the bags of money if he gave Mosley the other six bags and did not call police."

The money was turned over to a DEA task force officer after a Birmingham police drug detection dog was brought in and indicated the presence of a controlled substance within the safe, according to the government's forfeiture lawsuit.

A police officer told Mosley that a drug dog "hit" on the safe, but Mosley said he did not see any noticeable reaction in the dog, according to an affidavit Mosley filed.

"No controlled substance or illegal substance or object of any kind was discovered in my safe or on my person or on the premises of Alabama Lock & Key, and during the four months and three days since, I have not been charged with any crime, or arrested by anyone," Mosley said in his Sept. 21 affidavit.

Mosley has a pending lawsuit against a DEA task force officer, the city of Birmingham and Alabama Lock & Key to try and get the money returned to him.

Mosley's lawsuit says the money was wrongfully seized and transferred to the DEA under a process known as "adoptive seizure" and that the city of Birmingham is trying to get 80 percent of the cash and DEA 20 percent as a fee.

Mosley told law enforcement officers that the safe and contents were his, according to the government's civil lawsuit seeking forfeiture of the money.

"Mosley further claimed that he had been saving the money for 10 years and kept the safe at his house until he asked the locksmith to open it," according to the government's civil lawsuit.

"When asked about his income, Mosley further stated that he invested in real estate and owned an automotive business," according to the government's civil lawsuit.

The $894,800 was packaged in seven clear plastic bags that held 99 bundles of money held together by rubber bands, according to the government's lawsuit.

DEA task force officers, with Mosley's consent, searched Mosley's car and found documents with handwritten notes referring to certain individuals known by law enforcement to be involved in illegal drug trafficking and to the possible liquidation of assets of a known drug trafficking organization, according to the governments forfeiture lawsuit.

"In February 2010 Mosley was interviewed by law enforcement about the drug traffickers referenced in the handwritten notes found in his car, but he denied any relationship with those individuals at that time," according to the government's lawsuit.

During an interview with law enforcement on May 18, 2010, Mosley acknowledged that he was convicted of marijuana trafficking in 1999, and a review of Mosley's employment history showed "no legitimate income" to account for the possession of the money, according to the government's lawsuit. The government claims that the money was, or was intended to be, used for a drug transaction.

Borland couldn't comment on specifics of the case because there's an ongoing investigation.

"We do believe it is related to a crime," Borland said. "We didn't just do this at random."

Borland said the money can be seized if there are no charges. The forfeiture is a civil action against the money, not any individual, he said.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/11/she ... ht_to.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

His chances of getting that money back are about ZERO...
and
He's too stupid to have the money anyway - seriously - there's only about 25 different ways to get that money out without getting busted

[AZGrizFan]

$900,000 seized by Feds with no evidence of crime.

**Mosley said he had lost the combination. Mosley told him he didn't care if the safe was destroyed in trying to open it. He also said the lock and key worker could "have one of the bags of money if he gave Mosley the other six bags and did not call police."

**The money was turned over to a DEA task force officer after a Birmingham police drug detection dog was brought in and indicated the presence of a controlled substance within the safe, according to the government's forfeiture lawsuit.

**A police officer told Mosley that a drug dog "hit" on the safe, but Mosley said he did not see any noticeable reaction in the dog, according to an affidavit Mosley filed.

**DEA task force officers, with Mosley's consent, searched Mosley's car and found documents with handwritten notes referring to certain individuals known by law enforcement to be involved in illegal drug trafficking and to the possible liquidation of assets of a known drug trafficking organization, according to the governments forfeiture lawsuit.

**"In February 2010 Mosley was interviewed by law enforcement about the drug traffickers referenced in the handwritten notes found in his car, but he denied any relationship with those individuals at that time," according to the government's lawsuit.

**During an interview with law enforcement on May 18, 2010, Mosley acknowledged that he was convicted of marijuana trafficking in 1999, and a review of Mosley's employment history showed "no legitimate income" to account for the possession of the money, according to the government's lawsuit. The government claims that the money was, or was intended to be, used for a drug transaction.

NO evidence?

[dbackjon]

$900,000 seized by Feds with no evidence of crime.

NO evidence?

Looks like there is some evidence there...

[ming01]

The DEA is a joke. It should be abolished

[CID1990]

There seems to be a lot missing from this story.

I tend to reserve judgment until the whole thing runs its course. I have never been a big fan of forfeiture, but the task force might be holding on to certain facts so they don't blow a case against either this guy or maybe one of his associates or acquaintences.

[89Hen]

$900,000 seized by Feds with no evidence of crime.

Mosley said he had lost the combination....

"Mosley further claimed that he had been saving the money for 10 years and kept the safe at his house until he asked the locksmith to open it," according to the government's civil lawsuit.

The $894,800 was packaged in seven clear plastic bags that held 99 bundles of money held together by rubber bands, according to the government's lawsuit.

DEA task force officers, with Mosley's consent, searched Mosley's car and found documents with handwritten notes referring to certain individuals known by law enforcement to be involved in illegal drug trafficking and to the possible liquidation of assets of a known drug trafficking organization, according to the governments forfeiture lawsuit.

During an interview with law enforcement on May 18, 2010, Mosley acknowledged that he was convicted of marijuana trafficking in 1999, and a review of Mosley's employment history showed "no legitimate income" to account for the possession of the money, according to the government's lawsuit. The government claims that the money was, or was intended to be, used for a drug transaction.

Please Jelly

[Appaholic]

Innocent until proven guilty? Forfieture siezures are so unconstitutional IMO. You shouldn't have to explain yourself to the authorities. Granted, this is probably from illegal transactions....and now that the government knows he is in possession of that kind of cash, feel free to investigate & survellanced the guy. But to steal the guy's cash with no proof of conviction is BS.

[dbackjon]

Innocent until proven guilty? Forfieture siezures are so unconstitutional IMO. You shouldn't have to explain yourself to the authorities. Granted, this is probably from illegal transactions....and now that the government knows he is in possession of that kind of cash, feel free to investigate & survellanced the guy. But to steal the guy's cash with no proof of conviction is BS.

I do think there is due process for this, or should be.

[89Hen]

Innocent until proven guilty? Forfieture siezures are so unconstitutional IMO. You shouldn't have to explain yourself to the authorities. Granted, this is probably from illegal transactions....and now that the government knows he is in possession of that kind of cash, feel free to investigate & survellanced the guy. But to steal the guy's cash with no proof of conviction is BS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/ns ... and_courts

OMAHA — Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a man’s car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The ruling from the three-judge panel overturned an earlier decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Thalken in Nebraska in the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. A state trooper stopped Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 on May 28, 2003.

Gonzolez was driving a car that he told officers had been rented by a man named “Luis.” Gonzolez also said he had never been arrested and that he was not carrying drugs, guns or large amounts of money.

After Gonzolez consented, the car was searched and $124,700 in cash was found in a cooler in the back seat. Authorities also learned that Gonzolez had once been arrested for driving while intoxicated and that the person registered as having rented the car was not named “Luis.”

A drug dog later detected the scent of narcotics on the money and seat where the money was found.

[ASUG8]

I'll withhold judgement on this until more facts are revealed, but it seems a drug dog hit on US currency could happen to any of us with a few bucks in your wallet.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... ug-residu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Appaholic]

Innocent until proven guilty? Forfieture siezures are so unconstitutional IMO. You shouldn't have to explain yourself to the authorities. Granted, this is probably from illegal transactions....and now that the government knows he is in possession of that kind of cash, feel free to investigate & survellanced the guy. But to steal the guy's cash with no proof of conviction is BS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/ns ... and_courts

OMAHA — Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a man’s car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The ruling from the three-judge panel overturned an earlier decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Thalken in Nebraska in the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. A state trooper stopped Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 on May 28, 2003.

Gonzolez was driving a car that he told officers had been rented by a man named “Luis.” Gonzolez also said he had never been arrested and that he was not carrying drugs, guns or large amounts of money.

After Gonzolez consented, the car was searched and $124,700 in cash was found in a cooler in the back seat. Authorities also learned that Gonzolez had once been arrested for driving while intoxicated and that the person registered as having rented the car was not named “Luis.”

A drug dog later detected the scent of narcotics on the money and seat where the money was found.

What are you trying to say Hen? That they got it right? Well, no shit, I'm sure they do get it right, but their assumptions don't trump constitutional rights such as unlawful search & seizure. Obviously, the courts don't agree with my itepretation, but it still doesn't make it right. Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral....

[89Hen]

What are you trying to say Hen? That they got it right? Well, no shit, I'm sure they do get it right, but their assumptions don't trump constitutional rights such as unlawful search & seizure. Obviously, the courts don't agree with my itepretation, but it still doesn't make it right. Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral....

I'm saying like it or not, it sounds like it's legal. You not agreeing with the courts doesn't make it wrong.

People don't carry around $124,700 in cash, wrapped in aluminum foil in coolers. They also don't save $894,000 in cash in plastic bags, over a 10 year period and then suddenly forget the combination to the safe.

[Appaholic]

What are you trying to say Hen? That they got it right? Well, no shit, I'm sure they do get it right, but their assumptions don't trump constitutional rights such as unlawful search & seizure. Obviously, the courts don't agree with my itepretation, but it still doesn't make it right. Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral....

I'm saying like it or not, it sounds like it's legal. You not agreeing with the courts doesn't make it wrong.

People don't carry around $124,700 in cash, wrapped in aluminum foil in coolers. They also don't save $894,000 in cash in plastic bags, over a 10 year period and then suddenly forget the combination to the safe.

I agree, but being a dumbass has never been illegal, so it shouldn't be grounds for confiscation of money (except at casinos)...

[89Hen]

I agree, but being a dumbass has never been illegal, so it shouldn't be grounds for confiscation of money (except at casinos)...

But the good news is... most criminals are dumbasses, so it makes it easier to catch them.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why hasn't he been charged with a crime in over 7 months since the safe was turned over to the DEA?

They should either charge the man with drug trafficking or give the money back.

[89Hen]

Why hasn't he been charged with a crime in over 7 months since the safe was turned over to the DEA?

They should either charge the man with drug trafficking or give the money back.

Civil forfeiture does not require anybody be charged with a crime.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why hasn't he been charged with a crime in over 7 months since the safe was turned over to the DEA?

They should either charge the man with drug trafficking or give the money back.

Civil forfeiture does not require anybody be charged with a crime.

And I think that's bullshit.

[89Hen]

Civil forfeiture does not require anybody be charged with a crime.

And I think that's bullshit.

That may be, but that's the current law. I have mixed feelings. It would like to think it should be easy to prove the money was legal... if it was legal. I think the most cash I've ever had on hand was $5,000 (all in $100s) after selling a car to a diplomat. I didn't want to take a check because he lived in the embassy and I figured if the check were bad, I'd be screwed. But I did have a bill of sale so it would be easy to prove the cash were legit.

[Grizalltheway]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/ns ... and_courts

What are you trying to say Hen? That they got it right? Well, no shit, I'm sure they do get it right, but their assumptions don't trump constitutional rights such as unlawful search & seizure. Obviously, the courts don't agree with my itepretation, but it still doesn't make it right. Just because it's legal doesn't make it moral....

Hen's dream growing up was to be Reagan's drug czar.

[Skjellyfetti]

It would like to think it should be easy to prove the money was legal... if it was legal.

Burden of proof should be on the Feds.

They don't even have enough to book him on a crime. Much less convict him.

[89Hen]

It would like to think it should be easy to prove the money was legal... if it was legal.

Burden of proof should be on the Feds.

They don't even have enough to book him on a crime. Much less convict him.

You've heard of civil trials?

[Skjellyfetti]

Burden of proof should be on the Feds.

They don't even have enough to book him on a crime. Much less convict him.

You've heard of civil trials?

A civil trial against an inanimate object? Nope, never heard of that.

[89Hen]

You've heard of civil trials?

A civil trial against an inanimate object? Nope, never heard of that.

In a civil trial a person doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to be monitarily punished. That's what this is akin to.

BTW, this circuit court judgement in fact is United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

[Skjellyfetti]

That's what's explained in the article and I think it's horseshit.