Federal Judge Says Treasury Needs a Warrant to Freeze Funds
On Tuesday a federal judge in Ohio ruled that the Treasury Department violated the Fourth Amendment when it froze the assets of the Toledo-based organization KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development in 2006. The government suspects the group, ostensibly devoted to philanthropic activity in the Middle East, of supporting terrorism by funneling money to Hamas. But U.S. District Judge James Carr ruled that freezing KindHearts' money amounted to a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and was "unreasonable" because the government did not first obtain a warrant based on probable cause. He rejected the Justice Department's argument that national security concerns made the Fourth Amendment inapplicable. If Carr's ruling is upheld, the Treasury Department will no longer be able to unilaterally close down American charities or businesses based on alleged ties to terrorism. It will have to show a judge some evidence in support of its allegations and give the organization a chance to respond.
Carr's ruling is here (PDF). The ACLU, which is representing KindHearts, has more here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The government might actually drop the prosecution as it has done with the Patriot Act cases it has lost.
If the Treasury Department is innocent, it has nothing to fear.
God bless the ACLU. Am I allowed to say that?
I thought the US courts don't treat money as property for 4th amendment purposes?
Doesn't this ruling conflict with other cases that have been talked about around here?
Am I confusing issues?
I don't understand how people, and here will be many, could see this ruling as a bad thing.
All you need to do is show probable cause to a judge...and chances are that in a terrorism case any judge will lean as much as possible to granting it as long as there is even a little evidence.
Cry "national security" and let slip the dogs of tyranny.
Do those two words trump the entire Constitution, or just the bits the federal government doesn't like?
Hal-a-fukin'-looya!
Why do you love terrorists, Jacob?
CT,
You're viewing this as a civil forfeiture situation, I take it? I don't think it is in this case, but, since I think civil forfeiture is unconstitutional despite SCOTUS opinions otherwise, I'm not the best person to ask.
I'm looking hard at my copy of the Constitution and don't see an exception to the Fourth Amendment for national security.
For reasons of national security, wouldn't it be safest to seize all private property, everywhere, and not give it back until the owners can prove they are not terrorists, nor in league with them?
Is SCOTUS the next avenue of appeal after U.S. district court?
ProLib, I think you are right.
I was thinking about this post when I asked the question: http://www.reason.com/news/show/134501.html
What's bad is the Justice dept rational. The President trumps the Constitution.
I'm waiting for the day that Obama pulls his mask off and it's really Bush.
"He rejected the Justice Department's contention that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, did not apply to groups suspected of foreign terrorist ties because of the president's separate national security authority.
Do those two words trump the entire Constitution, or just the bits the federal government doesn't like?
Whatever those two words don't trump can be finished off by the War on Drugs.
"""I'm looking hard at my copy of the Constitution and don't see an exception to the Fourth Amendment for national security."""
It's written in a way that only the President can see it. It requires wearing special glasses. Just trust government that it's there. 😉
He rejected the Justice Department's argument that national security concerns made the Fourth Amendment inapplicable.
I would certainly hope so.
Does anybody at the Justice Department Ministry of Love have access to a copy of the Constitution? Maybe we could all chip in and buy them one.
Hey, score 1 for the 4th amendment!
So that makes it 1 to 5934 with the War On Drugs still comfortably in the lead.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the words "compelling interest" in the constitution where it says that the government can diregard the constitution anytime it has a "compelling interest".
Is SCOTUS the next avenue of appeal after U.S. district court?
No. It will go to a US Circuit Court next.
CT, I'm not sure if this is a civil asset forfeiture case or not. Those cases are traditionally styled so that the defendant is the property, which doesn't have any Constitutional rights. A more transparent end run around the Constitution I can't imagine, but it has been swallowed whole by the courts.
I would love to see tax resister argue that his bank account can't be seized by the IRS because the money in his account isn't a taxpayer and consequently didn't fail to pay taxes, applying civil asset forfeiture logic in reverse, so to speak.
Tim,
Normally no. The District Court is the federal trial court. I'd assume the next step is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I think some types of cases can jump directly to the Supreme Court, but that's very rare.
No, this would have to go to the Sixth Circuit.
Damn you and your quick fingersss!
I think we have consensus on the Sixth Circuit thing - Tim, did you get that or should five more commenters say it? 😛
That was directed at Mr. Dean. TAO in turn may damn me.
I would love to see tax resister argue that his bank account can't be seized by the IRS because the money in his account isn't a taxpayer and consequently didn't fail to pay taxes, applying civil asset forfeiture logic in reverse, so to speak.
While momentarily amusing, he'd still end up in a federal prison. Having enough money to flee the country and a big-titted "ex"-wife seems to be the winning play. Just ask Marc Rich.
Is SCOTUS the next avenue of appeal after U.S. district court?
No, for an Ohio case the next level of appeal is to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, then SCOTUS.
oops, make that six more commenters... should keep reading... 🙂
I think, and correct me if I am wrong here, but this has to go to the Sixth Circuit.
Any thoughts, other commenters?
Here is my evidence that KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development is allied with terrorists:
They named their charity "KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development".
Seriously, people. If you don't smell a rat when reading "KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development", it must be because you've already cut off your nose.
If you don't smell a rat when reading "KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development", it must be because you've already cut off your nose.
Honestly, when I see the "KindHearts" capitalization, I smell LoneWacko. But I spend too much time here...
I've heard the Sixth Circuit, Tim. Can anyone verify? ;-}
So long as you're not in a public school.
No, Tim, it goes to the Seventh Circuit next.
I fear that I cannot join in my esteemed colleague's dissent, for I believe that Ohio is, in fact, in the Sixth Circuit.
So, we're expecting this to go to appeal? I just find it weird when the government is the defendent that they can appeal after they were only at trial for falsely prosecuting a private citizen or organization. Or am I not correct in how this played out?
FTFY
Wait...so this goes to the Supremes next?
Is that what people are saying?
Wait...so this goes to the Supremes next?
After it goes to the Fourth Circuit. Geez, Tom, pay attention.
Ultimately, it goes before the House of Lords, exercising its power as curia regis. Well, technically to the Law Lords.
God save the Queen!
i thought it was to be placed down in the basement display department in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" to garner public comment for fifty earth years?
I agree with Citizen Nothing. The ACLU has been at the front of important and, in rulings like this, tide-changing civil liberties cases in the past few years.
The ACLU's work of course doesn't take anything away from the judge's courage in this case. Some great quotes from him in the NYT's article.