Civil Asset Forfeiture

Inside Mississippi's Asset Forfeiture Extortion Racket

State narcotics police seized $4 million in cash-as well as couches, comics, and 18-wheelers-through asset forfeiture in 2015.



It was the first time in Mississippi defense attorney Richard Rehfeldt's long career that he can remember where police seized a client's furniture.

In 2012, Rehfeldt says the Hind County Sheriff's Office raided his client's apartment on suspicion her boyfriend was a drug dealer. Anything purchased with drug proceeds is fair game to be seized by police under civil asset forfeiture laws, and they determined the boyfriend had furnished the apartment, so off went her TV, her table and chairs, her couch, her lamps, and even the pictures on the wall.

"Her case is the first in my 38 years of practicing law where they took the furniture," Rehfeldt says.

Under a settlement agreement, all of it was eventually returned. Well, all of it except the couch.

"It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that one Visio television, one dining room table and chairs, pictures and lamps are to be returned to the plaintiff upon execution of this Order by this Court," the Feb. 10, 2015 order in the Hinds County Court reads. "Additionally, one white couch is hereby forfeited to the Hinds County Sheriff's Office."

The order in her case* is one of hundreds contained in a tranche of court records and data collected by a Mississippi state legislature task force studying asset forfeiture in the Magnolia State. The records, which include forfeiture orders from almost all of the county and circuit courts in the state in 2015, offer a rare glimpse into Mississippi's asset forfeiture machine.

The records show many seizures of cash well over $100,000, the sort of big hauls that police say make asset forfeiture a vital tool to disrupt drug trafficking. But there are also many seizures of petty cash and cars in connection to little more than misdemeanor drug possession charges. Many of those cases ended in settlements, like Rehfeldt's client, where police only partially returned money and property—arrangements that state officials say can give the appearance of a shakedown.

For example, in April of 2015 the Desoto County Sheriff's Department agreed to return a 2006 Chevy Trailblazer owned by the mother of the petitioner, Jesse Smith, in exchange for $1,650. As Reason has reported in several cases, family members, especially parents, frequently have their cars seized for the alleged crimes of their children, even though the parents may not be charged or in any way connected to illegal activity.

According to the Mississippi legislature's Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER), which analyzes government operations, such settlements can be problematic. In a July 15 letter obtained by Reason, PEER executive director James Barber wrote to state lawmaker Mark Baker that "upon a cursory analysis of these orders, PEER staff notes that Agreed Orders tend to have the most potential for indicating possible abuse."

"This is because most Agreed Orders are entered into upon a settlement agreement in which the arresting authority receives some or all of the forfeited property as a condition subsequent to some sort of an agreement made between the arresting party and the defendant," Baker continued. "As the arresting party often seizes a large amount of property or cash and many of these Agreed Orders stipulate that some of most of the said property or cash will be returned while some will be forfeited, a reasonable person might assume that the arresting party is using its authority to gain assets from an arrest by settling with the defendant."

Put more simply, a reasonable person might assume he or she is being extorted.

According to court records, a Mississippi man named Robert Evans agreed to plead guilty in 2015 to a reduced charge of misdemeanor drug possession. In return, the state seized his truck and $170 in cash.

In total, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, working with local police departments, seized nearly $4 million in cash in 2015. Out of 154 seizures in 2015, the average cash value amounted to $66,733, and the median was $12,914. They seized cash amounts as low as $75 and as a high as $460,000. They seized trucks, cars, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, utility trailers, and 18-wheelers; an arsenal of assorted handguns, shotguns, and rifles; cell phones, cameras, laptops, tablets, turntables, and flatscreen TVs; boat motors, weed eaters, and power drills; and one comic book collection.

However, those numbers do not include police departments working independently from the Bureau of Narcotics or working with federal drug task forces, and thus do not give a complete record of seizures for that year. The state currently does not track or publish data on asset forfeiture, although the task force will soon be releasing its recommendations for a transparency bill that would introduce such reporting requirements.

"We're completely in the dark on how pervasive the practice really is," says Blake Feldman, an advocacy coordinator at the Mississippi ACLU. "Pretty much the default mindset is nobody should be overseeing any law enforcement. A big concern will be if the required tracking and reporting is going to be enforced, or if it will be a shallow gesture."

In recent years, there has been bipartisan momentum in states across the U.S. to roll back civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow police to seize property without convicting or even charging the owner with a crime. Mississippi is no different. According to an April poll of Mississippi voters conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, 88 percent of voters oppose civil forfeiture, including 89 percent of Republican voters.

Reason reached current Hinds County Attorney Claire Baker to ask about the couch seizure, as well as the debate in the state over asset forfeiture.

"There's been a move to crack down on forfeitures, and I get that," Baker says. "Mississippi law is wide open as far as forfeiture goes."

Baker was not the prosecutor when the Hinds County Sheriff seized the furniture of Rehfeldt's client, and she says she has no idea where the forfeited couch ended up. She hasn't seen many cases of seized furniture, either.

"Normally we try to be very careful about the seizures, because I don't want to have to go and give something back," she continues. "If there's any doubt, leave it. I've had that conversation with several law enforcement officers."

Scott Gilbert, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and asset forfeiture expert, says there's some modicum of due process protections for property owners in Mississippi, but a lack of law enforcement training and case law has left much room for improvement. Gilbert is now in private practice in Mississippi, defending people from forfeitures, although he says his job is much the same as it was before: making sure the government meets its burden of proof to deprive someone of their property.

"These guys are pulling a lot of drugs off the interstate," Gilbert says of Mississippi police. "A lot. They're doing their job. The problem is, the system in Mississippi has been in place for so long, and it's set up to where it's not conducive to allowing people to come into court and make the state meet its burden of proof, like if they were charged with a crime."

And without accurate tracking and reporting, there's no way to know whether the law is being applied fairly or unfairly.

"Because there's no reporting requirement in the law, we don't know why assets are being forfeited, we don't know the value of the property, we don't even know how often property owners are being charged with a crime," said Forest Thigpen, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, a conservative policy think-tank, in a statement earlier this year. "In states that require reporting, lawmakers are finding the value of the seized property is less than the cost to hire an attorney to get the property back."

Rehfeldt says the cost of challenging a forfeiture is just not worth it for the majority of potential clients who come through his door.

"I advise every one of my clients that unless you want to spend money to get money back, it just doesn't make sense," the Mississippi defense attorney says. "Some people fight it on principle, but about 90 percent just let the money go, even when they can prove the money has nothing to do with illegal activity. It costs too much to go to court to fight. Even if you do it yourself, it's about $250 in filing fees. Normally a lawyer wants around $1,500 to file."

Under asset forfeiture law, the state must be able to connect property to an alleged crime. In Mississippi, the only crimes that police can seize property for are money laundering and drug law violations. However, Gilbert says Mississippi police and prosecutors money often fail to tie property to a provable drug transaction. In one case Gilbert encountered, police seized a man's garden hoses and horse saddle.

While rare, the court records obtained by Reason show other instances of strange and petty seizures by police. In July of 2015, the Copiah County Sheriff's Department agreed to return a long list of items it had seized from Travis McCoy, including an outboard boat motor, a nail gun, several car batteries, and his coin, stamp, and comic book collections.

One of chief criticisms of civil asset forfeiture by civil liberties groups is that the process is notoriously slow and hard to challenge, forcing property owners to fight in court for months to try and get their property back. Because these are civil cases, they have no right to a public defender. In the case of the white couch forfeited by the Hinds County Sheriff, Rehfeldt's client had her furniture returned three years after she first filed a petition challenging the seizure.

Records show that many Mississippi counties split asset forfeiture proceeds 80-20 between police departments and prosecutors. Such arrangements occur in other states, but civil liberties groups say they create perverse profit incentives for prosecutors and police. Gilbert refers to this system as "eat what you kill," and says it is, at best, a public image problem for police.

Gilbert notes the U.S. no longer allows judges to be paid based on the number of sentences they hand down, and there are anti-kickback statutes prohibiting doctors from referring patients based on financial considerations. Yet, police can fund their departments based on how they exercise their power.

Gilbert says he doesn't believe there is widespread abuse of asset forfeiture among Mississippi police, but even in the best case scenario, the system erodes public confidence.

The 2015 records do not include seizures from federal asset forfeiture cases. State and local law enforcement often work with joint federal drug task forces, which entitles them to a share of the forfeiture proceeds while sidestepping state requirements and budgets entirely. Mississippi law enforcement received more than $47 million in from 2000 to 2013 from federal asset forfeitures, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm that has challenged forfeiture laws in several states.

The Institute for Justice gives Mississippi a C- grade for its asset forfeiture laws, noting the low burden of proof required for a seizure and the high amount of revenue that goes straight back into law enforcement budgets. Unlike many states' asset forfeiture systems, which forces property owners to prove their innocence to get their things back, the burden of proof falls on the government to disprove a property owner's claim.

At a hearing on asset forfeiture earlier this year in the Mississippi statehouse in July, Rankin and Madison County District Attorney Michael Guest said Mississippi police patrol major drug trafficking corridors, and asset forfeiture was a critical tool in their interdiction efforts.

"They can call it what they want, put terms on it like 'policing for profit,'" Guest said. "That's nothing more than accusing these hard-working men of stealing. Stealing people's hard-earned money. I wish instead of talking about this, we were here to talk about how we're going to protect these men and women putting their lives on the line."

Not everyone agrees with Guest and Gilbert on the integrity of the officers seizing guns, money, and cars. Rick Ward, a Mississippi gun rights activists and former investigator at the state attorney general's public integrity office, is currently suing the Hattiesburg Police Department for public records on its seizures of firearms. Ward claims the department illegally seized more than 800 guns without going through the proper forfeiture process, and then sold them at public auction. The problem, he says he's encountered, is getting the owners to come forward.

"These people who have been the victims of unlawful seizures are scared to death," Ward says. "They've seen how much power the police have, and they don't want to stand in the state capitol and point a finger at 50 to 60 police officers. Most of these people have been through so much trying to get their property back that they don't want anything to do with it."

* The charges against Rehfeldt's client were later dismissed, and she eventually had her record expunged. For those reasons, Reason chose not to publish her name. The prosecutor in the case, now an attorney for the city of Jackson, declined to comment. The whereabouts of the couch remain unknown.

NEXT: For Those Who Say All Gun Buyers Should Be Screened, the Data Don't Matter

Civil Asset Forfeiture Mississippi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

58 responses to “Inside Mississippi's Asset Forfeiture Extortion Racket

  1. Hug a cop! Come on everybody, yeah!

  2. * The charges against Rehfeldt’s client were later dismissed, and she eventually had her record expunged. For those reasons, Reason chose not to publish her name. The prosecutor in the case, now an attorney for the city of Jackson, declined to comment. The whereabouts of the couch remain unknown.

    In some deputy’s living room I’m sure.

  3. It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya!

    1. It is a conspiracy to violate the US Constitution. You need probable cause to stop people and you need a warrant to seize property. Outside any of that, you need to give everyone just compensation if you take their property.

      Asset forfeiture would end in a heartbeat if cops had to pay people for taking their property within 30 days of the illegal seizures. No litigation is necessary, just file a free form with the court and a judge has to sign the judgment against the police/sheriffs/state troopers.

      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      1. Who defines just compensation?

        What is just compensation?

        nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
        Says nothing about private property be taken for private use, does it?

        1. If the police take private property for private use, that’s theft plain and simple.

          The people who should be policing this practice work for the US Attorney General, but like Loretta Lynch, they are big proponents of it, and share in the proceeds as well. It’s another indication of government getting out of hand, and lawyering people to extortion of their property. I agree with loveconstitution, it’s an improper taking of private property. And frankly, taking the property without a conviction seems to me, a finding of guilt before a trial or even indictment. And any laws allowing it should be unconstitutional.

          But that hasn’t stopped government before. It will likely take a SCOTUS case to overturn it. After a large legal expense, that usually exceeds the value of the seized assets. Of course, Congress could simply make it illegal, if they weren’t so pro-government and essentially immune from it happening to them or their families (since when do prosecutors try this on government employees – not that I can remember).

          1. ackshully, loveconstitutoin showed how COngress need make no law ending the practice.. it is already contrary to the Constitution as it is. The problem came in when some former administration decided to twist some words to mean what they don’t, do an end-run round the limits placed on FedGov, and invent a process to steal from the unconvicted thus not yet guilty public. This is some of the poison fruit springing up from the “war on drugs”, when in reality NOWHERE in the Constitution do FedGov have ANY authority to regulate what we do/don’t put into our bodies. The DEA and war on some drugs is unconstitiutional on its face, and must end. We spend billions/year and have more drugs/crime/killings now that we did when it all started. If that nonsense were to end tomorrow, civil asset theft would end Saturday.

  4. Can you imagine how many worlds would be totally rocked if drug prohibition went the way of alcohol prohibition?

    1. Can you imagine how many pairs of kaki fatigue pants would not be purchased by meat head cops?

      1. There would be plenty. If we get rid of the drug war they’re going to pick something else to tackle in the same way. Probably “human trafficking”.

        1. Or the wars we are about to start

  5. People asking for their stuff back is clearly a war on cops.

  6. If they were serious about preventing harm, the cops would be stopping north-bound cars, not south-bound. But they aren’t interested in stopping the drugs this is supposedly about, but rather about seizing the cash. So Mr. Guest should be asked why they focus on the cash-rich lines rather than interdicting supply if it isn’t policing for profit.

    1. As background, I’ve known cops along drug corridors who have flat out told me they are interested in the south-bound traffic because that’s where the cash comes along. They claim that by interrupting the profits it will starve the drug dealers, but I’m sure their self-benefit doesn’t hurt either.

      It won’t be surprising to anyone here, but a friend of mine who is a State Trooper was giving me a ride once and pointing out all the vehicles he would find pretextual reasons to stop along the way. He was out of uniform at the time, so he didn’t, but I recall him pointing out a work truck from a drywall company a few states away. He told me he was certain it was a drug courier because “why would someone be 600 miles from home in their work truck?” I should have pointed out to him that the citizenry isn’t required to explain themselves to him or justify why they are where they are and that his argument had no reasonable basis.

      1. Fuck da police! (I once got fucked by an officer. It was hot.)

        1. Did he at least give you a reacharound?

      2. Prohibition makes everyone guilty until proven innocent.

      3. I’ve taken MY work truck a few thousand miles from home. Why? Its the only set of wheels I have, and I can sleep in the back when I’ve driven far enough to need to. No motel bills.

  7. Law enforcement needs to get back to its real purpose: scouring Hillary’s email server for signs of hacking.

  8. “Additionally, one white couch is hereby forfeited to the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office.”

    Turns out it goes great with the other chairs in the Sheriff’s Office breakroom.

  9. I wish instead of talking about this, we were here to talk about how we’re going to protect these men and women putting their lives on the line.

    You know, that’s why it’s not a good idea to steal from all those people. No one wants to protect mendacious thieves.

  10. You dedicated your life to cherishing and protecting me. Now you treat me like a pest. Where did I go wrong??

  11. “”They can call it what they want, put terms on it like ‘policing for profit,'” Guest said. “That’s nothing more than accusing these hard-working men of stealing. Stealing people’s hard-earned money. I wish instead of talking about this, we were here to talk about how we’re going to protect these men and women putting their lives on the line.””

    I really am grateful for the police for putting their necks out there. But the whole “we put our lives on the line” schtick is being used to justify every single police abuse. Just because they risk their lives arresting gangbangers and other thugs doesn’t justify stealing some person’s white couch, or comic book collection.

    I’m beginning to think that the whole “we put our lives on the line” rationale is really just code for “we put our lives on the line, therefore we’re entitled to a few extra-legal perks, IYKWIM”.

    1. You aren’t properly grateful until they have the right of Prima Nocta.

  12. Don’t be havin’ no couch if you don’t want to be a thug. Good and thoroughly depressing piece.

    As to what happened with the couch? They either destroyed it looking for hidden dope, or it’s in someone’s fishing/hunting cabin.

      1. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

  13. I hope to read the next your article update obat penggugur kandungan bandung Thank you for sharing in this article obat penggugur kandungan jakarta i like it!

  14. That must be one nice couch.

    1. it definitely ties the room together

  15. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here


  16. imo, one of the biggest problems is that in most jurisdictions, cops seize the stuff and then person has to go to the hearing and argue their case to GET IT BACK

    that’s #$(#$(#!

    if asset forfeiture is justified at all, it should work similarly to civil process for the average joe

    — I say as somebody who has successfully sued several times including the police … and happily won some nice $$$!!!

    don’t violate my rights. I SUE

    iow, the state should have to win their case before they get to seize Anything, just like you would if you sued somebody. you get the spoils AFTER you win, not before… goose, gander, etc.

    I also personally think the standard should be raised from preponderance (Which is the standard in most jurisdictions) to CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence.

    C&C is the standard used in police arbitration cases in most instances. for example, if an agency wants serious discipline (beyond say… a written reprimand) to hold up in arbitration, in most cases they have to prove the termination by a C&C evidence standard.

    the state has plenty of resources and if they are going to take people’s stuff, they should at least have the C&C standard, not the “preponderance” standard.

    I also think if the state loses, they should have to pay lawyer’s costs for the guy whose stuff they tried to seize.

  17. That’s nothing more than accusing these hard-working men of stealing. Stealing people’s hard-earned money.

    That’s because they ARE stealing, and you fucking well know it, you greasy little shyster.

    “Civil forfeiture” is not merely illegal, it’s specifically forbidden by the 5th amendment to the constitution, and anyone participating in it is committing theft under color of authority. Guest belongs behind bars for this shit, and so do the cops who carry out the crime.


    1. the same procedures that apply to “ordinary citizens” suing somebody for $$$ should apply to the state when doing so (although I personally think the state should be required to meet a higher evidentiary standard… )

      somebody suing you and winning a judgment that you have to pay isn’t theft…

      1. You aren’t the one being sued. The money is. How we arrived at a point where currency can be a defendant, who knows.

        1. talk to FedGov who invented that meme out of whole cloth. NO basis in law or the Constitution. Cash is PROPERTY, as in “effects” thus protected by the due process clause until the accused is found guilty after due process in a competent court of jurisdiction.

        2. it’s not just money, it’s any number of other objects of value that are the target of Theft Under Color of Law, aka Asset Forfeiture..

  18. “In total, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, working with local police departments, seized nearly $4 million in cash in 2015. Out of 154 seizures in 2015, the average cash value amounted to $66,733, and the mean was $12,914.”

    Average and mean are the same thing. Perhaps you mean the median was $12,914?

    1. You are correct. I have a shame.

  19. Thanks, Obama.

    1. You can legitimately blame Obama for a number of things. Interestingly, while he hasn’t visibly done anything much to stop this abuse, no other president has either, it didn’t start with his presence in the office of president.By the way,I’m not now, never was a fan of Obama.

  20. Hey, “both” Parties promised in their platforms to preserve and protect the American custom of asset-forfeiture looting and preemptive nationalization. So… it’s what 96% of the voters cast their ballots for, right?
    GOP: its INTENTIONS are good–Just Say No!
    DEM: reform si! repeal NO!

  21. I have threequestions re the fiasco that is Asset Forfeiture, aka Civil Asset Forfeiture or as I would describe it, Theft Under Color of Law.

    1. Why have state legislatures and our Congress Critters allowed this scam in the first place?
    2. When will they pull up their socks and put a stop to this abuse?
    3. How come they have allowed it to carry on for such great a period of time?

    1. because WE have stood silently by as they did, have done, do, and cobninue to do what is contrary to our Constitution. WHen a million angry voters storm the Congress and the State Houses DEMANDING an end to the practice, enough will “find” enough courage to do so, our of fear for their own lucrative futures as lawmakers and other forms of politician.

      1. point noted.

      2. It takes more like 20 million bipartisan voters to make Congress sit up and take notice. More than the number of Obamacare beneficiaries who are about to get the shaft by a heedless Congress.

  22. “I wish instead of talking about this, we were here to talk about how we’re going to protect these men and women putting their lives on the line.”

    you start making them safer the day they stop stealing and other such shenanigans.

  23. NOWHERE in our Constitution is there any mention of non-persons being defendants, having due process rights, etc. It DOES, however, make it very clear that we have the right to being secure in our persons, papers, houses, and effects.. in other words, everything we own. NONE of that can be taken without due process proving the owner of that property is guilty of some crime. This business of charging property with a civil offense is a fairy tale, not law. When propery is seized, it must be held in trust until such time as guilt of criminal activity can be conclusively proven in a court of law, defendant having right to legal representation, producing witnesses, examining the government’s witnesses, etc. This obscene practice must end.

  24. Any cop, prosecutor or “judge” that engages in asset forfeiture ought to be sent to Caracas, Havana, Hanoi or perhaps Pyongyang.

    Real Americans don’t treat each other this way.

  25. Otherwise known as: The Police Shopping Network.

    After deigning black market profiteering, stopping police asset seizures is the number two reason for legalizing drugs.

  26. Seems like this Asset Forfeiture racket, which I prefer to call Theft Under Color of Law pays pretty well for the operators thereof. Pity that.

  27. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..


  28. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now


Comments are closed.