Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
A win for at least one resident -- and victim of shady forfeiture practices -- has been handed down by Utah's top court.
Kyle Savely had $500,000 taken from him by Utah law enforcement during a traffic stop.
No charges were filed and Savely was never arrested,
but a dog told the Utah Highway Patrol it could search the vehicle and seize the cash, even though the search failed to produce any drugs.
The Utah Highway Patrol apparently had no charges to file,
but rather than return the money when Savely requested it back,
it chose to hand it over to the DEA via equitable sharing.
Equitable sharing with the feds allows state agencies to bypass more restrictive state laws and help themselves to 80% of whatever's seized.
The DEA pitched in, too, hoping for 20% of the seized cash, further demonstrating the perverse incentives of the federal forfeiture loophole. From the decision [PDF]:
On February 10, 2017, seventy-five days after UHP’s seizure, Mr. Savely filed a pe ion in state district court seeking the release of his property.
In a hearing on February 21, 2017, the state district court ruled in favor of Mr. Savely, concluding that UHP was required by the Act to procure an order from a state district court that authorized UHP to release the seized cash to the DEA and,
thus, that UHP had unlawfully transferred the funds.
Additionally, the state district court concluded that UHP had failed to take one of the actions required by Utah Code section 24-4-104(1)(a) and therefore ordered UHP to return the funds to Mr. Savely.
UHP immediately stopped payment on the January 24, 2017 check sent to the DEA.
In response, the DEA served UHP with a second federal seizure warrant
on February 23, 2017, after which UHP requested that the state district court reconsider its initial ruling.
Savely challenged this move, claiming the state had jurisdiction over the seized cash and could not use equitable sharing to route around state law. The court agrees for the most part,
the court sides with Savely.
It points to one clause of the law, along with its intent -- "to protect property owners" during forfeiture proceedings --
as evidence the state government (and its residents) were seeking to close the federal loophole that would have erased the protections it had enacted.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180902/18044740570/utahs-top-court-says-cops-cant-use-federal-loophole-to-dodge-criminal-charge-requirement-forfeitures.shtml