DEA, TSA Sued For Stealing 79-Year-Old Man's Life Savings From His Daughter At An Airport

from the take-what-thou-wilt-that-is-the-whole-of-the-law-i-guess dept

The DEA doesn't really want to stop the flow of drugs into the country. Let's not kid ourselves. Better yet, let's not allow the DEA to kid us it's in the drug enforcement business. It's in the cash business. It wants to seize cash. It is so cash-focused it hires TSA agents to alert the DEA whenever they see cash in people's luggage. It also regularly peruses airplane and railway passenger manifests to find targets it feels might be carrying cash.

Forfeiture laws make this easy. They make seizing cash so easy hundreds of law enforcement agencies engage in the same fishing trips for cash, ignoring drugs and seizing money from drivers traveling out of the states they're supposed to be defending against incoming drugs.

It's not illegal to travel while carrying large amounts of cash. But it may as well be. The Institute for Justice is representing a 79-year-old man who had his life savings seized by the DEA at an airport -- a seizure that has not been followed up with any official accusations (charges, indictments) of wrongdoing.

Terry [Rolin], 79, is a retired railroad engineer born and raised in Pittsburgh. For many years, he followed his parents’ habit of hiding money in the basement of their home. When Terry moved out of his family home and into a smaller apartment, he became uncomfortable with keeping a large amount of cash. Last summer, when his daughter Rebecca was home for a family event, Terry asked her to take the money and open a new joint bank account that he could use to pay for dental work and to fix his truck, among other needs.

Rolin gave his lifetime savings of $82,373 to his daughter. She checked to see if it was illegal to travel with this large amount of cash. She discovered it wasn't and packed it in her luggage. But a TSA agent spotted the cash and detained her for questioning by Pennsylvania State Troopers. Eventually, she was allowed to leave. But she was stopped by DEA agents when she attempted to board her plane.

Here's what happened then, taken from Rolin and West's proposed class action lawsuit [PDF] against the TSA and DEA:

Despite Rebecca’s explanation, and without probable cause, the DEA agent seized Terry’s life savings because it was greater than $5,000 and was thus considered a “suspicious” amount under DEA’s policy or practice regarding the seizure of cash from travelers at airports.

DEA has continued to hold Terry’s life savings since August 26, 2019, and has taken actions to permanently keep the money using civil forfeiture.

Neither Terry nor Rebecca has been arrested for or charged with any crime.

The initial and continued seizure of Terry’s life savings since August 26, 2019, has prevented him from replacing his teeth and repairing his truck, among other expenses.

According to the TSA's own policies, it should not be scanning people's luggage for "suspicious" amounts of cash. It is only supposed to be concerned with items that threaten airline security, like explosives and weapons. The suit says TSA agents routinely seize cash in contravention of these policies and do so even when it's been determined the traveler and their belongings pose no security threat.

Instead agents flag any "large" amount of currency, which appears to be in the area of $10,000 or more. This is likely due to multiple law enforcement agencies falsely claiming large amounts of currency are suspicious, if not illegal. The DEA leans heavily on the TSA to perform this extraneous screening for it.

The DEA's standards for "suspicion" are even laxer than those unofficially followed by the TSA. According to the lawsuit, the DEA will seize any amount over $5,000 whether or not probable cause exists to perform the seizure. Once the DEA has the money, it will eventually begin forfeiture proceedings. Time is of the essence for those fighting to get their money back, but the DEA is never in any hurry because it's not its money and it has no immediate need for funds.

We already know the DEA is lousy and focused on easy wins, preferably those that involve forfeited funds. But the TSA is part of the problem. It focuses on cash despite it having no statutory authority to seize people simply because they're carrying cash. The TSA does not prohibit people from carrying cash and has produced no evidence to back up its apparent belief these people are more dangerous or likely to be engaged in illegal activities as other passengers not carrying cash.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration finding the TSA and DEA's actions unconstitutional and an injunction forbidding either agency from seizing individuals or their belongings solely on the basis of them carrying cash -- something that is not actually illegal. If it is granted class status, this will make it much easier -- and much less expensive -- for others who have been abused by these federal agencies to demand their money back.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dea, legalized theft, terry rolin, tsa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 12:26pm

    You would think the TSA would trust people who carried large amounts of cash because it's unlikely that anybody is going to bring a fortune with them when they seek to blow up a plane. The owner of the cash obviously has an incentive to get to their destination.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 12:47pm

    I hope they win their lawsuit and recover $88,000,000.00

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 22 Jan 2020 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      They cannot recover more than their losses and costs unless there is a criminal penalty involved, and an agency is not criminal, only individuals may be.

      Which is another reason "civil asset forfeiture" should not be a thing: it is far too lopsided and its existence alone stops its victims to be made whole on average, so engaging in unwarranted forfeitures is a net win even though some forfeitures may be reversed in court.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        NHT, 23 Jan 2020 @ 12:11am

        Re: Re:

        "...an agency is not criminal, only individuals may be"

        Too bad this same logic doesn't apply to corporations. But then again, sound logic is whatever those wealthy enough to have hundreds of shell corps. say it is.

        John Oliver devoted entire episodes to this crap 2-3 years ago (maybe more). It causes rage among the impotent masses, but then another story about another equally despicable and Orwellian scam being run on the "imps" redirects their anger before it can galvanize long enough to solve one problem.

        I truly believe the inundation of stories about how the average Joe is being screwed is doing more to hamper reform than helping it. And DJT cubed that phenomenon.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 7:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          These agencies were created without any democratic process at all. These are not run by elected individuals and certainly operate under very dark oversight. They definitely keep democracy to a minimum.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 6:23am

        Re: Re:

        "an agency is not criminal, only individuals may be."

        Nothing personal, just business.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      That would be good for the plaintiffs, but bad for you and me. It would come out of our pockets, and it wouldn't slow the TSA, DEA, FBI, or anyone else down one iota.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 4:12pm

      Re: Yes and no

      Yes. I want her to win the case and stop this stupidity. No, I don't want her to win a boat load of money. The money will be paid by the American tax payers. I already pay too much that is wasted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        AnonyCog, 22 Jan 2020 @ 9:51pm

        Re: Re: Yes and no

        The DEA federal judges' past IRAISS state different.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2020 @ 6:29am

        Re: Re: Yes and no

        " No, I don't want her to win a boat load of money. The money will be paid by the American tax payers. "

        Then we should hire (vote) for better workers.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bobob, 22 Jan 2020 @ 12:52pm

    The DEA are fucking criminals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Koby (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:01pm

    There oughtta

    From the "There Oughtta Be A Law" department.... There ought to be a law that if seized money is returned to the owner, then interest and legal fees are paid, and this money then comes from THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. Switching from a money maker to a money loser has been found to change a lot of people's behavior.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:40pm

      Re: There oughtta

      There should be a law that money and property cannot be seized without charges being brought, and cannot be kept without a conviction.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 3:44pm

        Re: Re: There oughtta

        There should be a law that money and property cannot be seized

        I'd be inclined to put that right into the Constitution, perhaps in the mysterious blank space between Amendments 3 and 5.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 4:05pm

          Re: Blank space

          Unfortunately, what is reasonable is only constrained by the imagination of an individual with a badge.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 6:29am

            Re: Re: Blank space

            Unfortunately, the laws are enforced equally.

            That picture of lady justice holding a scale and blindfolded ... yeah - just a really big joke perpetrated upon the public. This is one of the biggest lies - and many believe it, even while witnessing activities that prove it incorrect.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jan 2020 @ 7:27am

          Re: Re: Re: There oughtta

          "I'd be inclined to put that right into the Constitution, perhaps in the mysterious blank space between Amendments 3 and 5."

          Where's that "sad but true" button, again?

          I think the issue is that there's an amendment stating that law enforcement can't just nick stuff willy-nilly, but there's no actual law which details what willy-nilly might consist of.

          Meaning civil forfeiture is constitutional because eyeballing an officer of the law is considered good and valid reason.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bergman (profile), 26 Jan 2020 @ 11:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: There oughtta

          And we could even write a statute that says that using governmental authority to violate rights was illegal, and the perpetrator should be fined and jailed.

          We could call it Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 of the US Code.

          Unfortunately, all it takes to circumvent all of that is for our courts to declare that taking someone's property at gunpoint without proving their guilt before or after the fact is neither an unreasonable seizure nor armed robbery, and you're left where we are right now.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 7:55pm

        Re: Re: There oughtta

        Gutless banks that have ilked trillions of dollars from the wealth of America should not give law enforcement access to funds without convictions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:45pm

      Re: There oughtta

      Better idea: Legal fees and interest are paid by the ones who made and okayed the theft. Let the department foot the bill and the pain is spread out, with no one individual suffering anything of note. Make the pain personal though and suddenly stealing anything they can get their hands on becomes much more risky and comes with an actual consequence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonyCog, 22 Jan 2020 @ 9:53pm

      Re: There oughtta

      No. The restitution should come out of the official who filed the paperwork on behalf of the government and lied.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2020 @ 6:40am

      Re: There oughtta

      No, there ought to be a law that, if a police officer's salary is paid, in whole or in part, in funds which are the proceeds of theft, armed robbery, "civil forfeiture" or similar criminal activity on the part of police, that these funds (and anything purchased with those funds) be treated as proceeds of crime - which should be forfeited to the victims of this crime. Armed robbery with a gun and a badge is still armed robbery, so it would only be consistent to handle it accordingly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ted the IT Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:43pm

    Travelling with Cash

    30 years ago, I would travel fairly regularly with $10,000-$50,000 on my person. I would do this when purchasing large amounts of IT equipment from regional importer/distributors that offered cash discounts. I was always nervous about being carjacked or mugged during these trips; cops never made me nervous because my business was on the level.

    These days, with both local cops and various 3-letter agencies all looking to steal cash and other assets, travelling with cash is treated as criminal behavior. If I ever need to travel with a lot of funds, I will probably get a cashier's check.

    That should make sure I end up on a watch list.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:48pm

      Re: Travelling with Cash

      'How dare you take steps to make it harder for us to rob you?! Clearly only a criminal worthy of being watched would ever try to impede the honorable members of law enforcement, so you'd better believe you're going on all the lists.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 26 Jan 2020 @ 11:16pm

      Re: Travelling with Cash

      Not traveling with cash won't save you, they'll just seize the cashier's check on the grounds that not traveling with cash is suspicious behavior.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 1:52pm

    I've said it before and I'll say it again

    Dumb criminals go to jail.

    Smart criminals get a badge and/or government position before committing their crimes and avoid that possibility.

    At this point the only real difference between organized crime and thugs like the ones listed in this story is the former are more honest about it and can but dream of the legal protections the latter enjoy

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 2:26pm

    Out of curiosity, i wonder exactly how many different ways the USA government and all the various law enforcement agencies are employing to turn us into citizens who have nothing, no privacy, no freedom, no rights of any sort and obviously, no assets, cash or otherwise. I appreciate that someone travelling internally with a massive amount of cash COULD be up to no good and maybe needs to be watched, just as someone taking frequent trips maybe to Columbia, but to take a persons life savings, just because you can when you're supposed to be one of the 'good guys', someone we're supposed to look up to, to respect and trust instills nothing but contempt and downright hate! This law is in dire need of changes, as said above. Let's hope Wyden or similar gets on the case! At least he'd try to do something, unlike a lot of others who are content to keep milking the cow themselves!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tin-Foil-Hat, 22 Jan 2020 @ 4:41pm

    $5000

    My parents gave me $5000 cash when I visited them in Canada. I asked my mother to put it on a US funds check because of the potential of being robbed by an agent of the US government. They didn't believe that it could happen in this bastion of freedom but they ultimately complied.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2020 @ 5:35pm

    Bunch of unmitigated assholes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Beefcake (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 6:53pm

    Country AND Western

    They took his pickup truck and his teeth? I hope he doesn’t have a dog.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    loboosh (profile), 22 Jan 2020 @ 7:10pm

    In the 1930's they had 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 dollar bills fast forward 90 years 100 is the highest bill. What is wrong with this country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      NHT, 23 Jan 2020 @ 12:17am

      Re:

      Ironically, the US lowered the top domination and muscled other countries with legit currencies into doing the same to make it nearly impossible for criminals to transport huge amounts of cash physically. I say ironic because I bet they wish those huge bills were still around so they could up their seizure takes...or maybe not since the seizures seem to be focused on those too broke too fight back.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 23 Jan 2020 @ 12:35am

        Re: Re:

        Meanwhile the U.S. government still makes and uses the penny. Cost more money to make a penny than its value represents.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 8:29pm

        Re: Re:

        But, the government confesses to losing or misplacing $2.2 Billion! Isn't that three or four palettes loaded three feet tall with $100 bills?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NHT, 23 Jan 2020 @ 12:35am

    Here's another heartening story of CF

    Ella Bromell, a 72-year-old woman who had to fight off the forfeiture of her home after drug dealers conducted transactions on her property, despite Ms. Bromell’s multiple attempts to stop them.

    How can law enforcement be called anything but evil scum in cases like that? I'd always felt LEOs were disproportionately comprised of the worst elements of our society by simple first-hand experience despite being shielded by the pure luck of being the "right color" & born to money. Now, with their behavior in regards to CFs, I don't know how anyone besides "thumpers" can not condemn them wholesale.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Haydem (profile), 23 Jan 2020 @ 2:50am

    DEA, TSA Sued For Stealing 79-Year-Old Man's Life Savings From H

    That would be useful for the offended parties, however terrible for you and me. It would leave our pockets, and it wouldn't slow the TSA, DEA, FBI, or any other person down one particle.
    https://www.mybkexperience.xyz/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Roddy (profile), 23 Jan 2020 @ 9:13am

    When you're traveling with a large sum of money, and you have every valid reason to be more afraid of government workers seizing it than any actual thieves, something has gone very wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 23 Jan 2020 @ 12:49pm

    Wasnt it a couple years back...

    That a person Finally got about 2/3 of his money back after 2 years of Going to court???

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2020 @ 8:36pm

      Re: Wasnt it a couple years back...

      Not too much of a chance for an uprising either, unless the private prison system empties their prisons on America!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    R,O,G,S, 12 Mar 2020 @ 10:42am

    Gee, you cant always get what you want, but you get what you need, in bankster America.

    No (banster) conspiracy here folks just move along.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.