Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Cops Took This Guy's Car Because He Unwittingly Rented It to an Alleged Drug Dealer

Like other innocent owners, Manni Munir finds that fighting a civil forfeiture can cost more than the property is worth.

|

On a Tuesday evening last April, a black 2015 Chevrolet Malibu with Texas plates was traveling west on Interstate 10 in Mississippi when Hancock County Sheriff's Deputy Danny Gilkerson pulled it over, ostensibly for exceeding the speed limit by about eight miles per hour. Based on an alert by a drug-sniffing dog, the cops searched the car, finding "numerous Tupperware containers containing numerous controlled substances," including methamphetamine, heroin, MDMA, Adderall, and Xanax, along with three loaded firearms: an AR-15, a revolver, and a pistol. The driver, Rohith Mathew, was arrested on drug and gun charges, and his car was seized as the instrumentality of those crimes.

Except it wasn't his car. Mathew, an executive at a Houston-based supply chain management company, had rented it from Manni Munir, who owns a small Houston car rental business with a fleet of about two dozen vehicles. Munir, who described Mathew as "a giant nerd" who was "very chatty" and "very friendly," said he had no idea what his customer was up to. Munir, whose business specializes in serving people who come to Houston for medical treatment, said he did not even know that Mathew, contrary to the rental contract, had taken the car out of Texas. But under federal civil asset forfeiture law, none of that mattered.

While this case might seem like small potatoes compared to many other forfeiture outrages, it vividly illustrates the dilemma faced by innocent owners who find that challenging a forfeiture can cost more than their property is worth. It also shows how civil forfeiture encourages cops to prioritize profit over public safety.

As Giacomo Bologna reports in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Munir found out that his car had been seized after Mathew failed to return it on time and a GPS tracker showed the car was parked at the Hancock County Jail. When an alarmed Munir called the Hancock County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Fred Eagan matter-of-factly informed him that he would not be getting the car back. Munir said he offered to share his GPS data, seemingly relevant to the case against Mathew, but investigators were not interested.

"What is the accusation?" Munir wondered in an interview with the Clarion-Ledger. "If the accusation is that I'm involved, then the burden should be on them to prove it." But that is not how civil forfeiture works.

Munir faces a couple of options, neither of them palatable. He can let the government keep his car, which he bought for $7,500 a few years ago—a significant loss for a small business like his. Or he can challenge the forfeiture in federal court via the "innocent owner" defense, which requires him to prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" that he "did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture" and, after learning of it, "did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property." Munir said a lawyer he approached told him challenging the forfeiture would cost at least $5,000, and there is no guarantee he would win.

"If I was Hertz, if I was Avis, they wouldn't try to seize the car," Munir told the Clarion-Ledger. "This is a huge hit."

Why did the Hancock County Sheriff's Office refer the case to the Justice Department instead of pursuing the forfeiture under state law? The Clarion-Ledger notes that Eagan, the deputy who filed the federal criminal complaint against Mathew (whose first and last names are reversed in that document), is a member of a Drug Enforcement Administration task force. But that is not the only explanation for pursuing federal "adoption" of the case, which offers clear advantages for cops seeking to keep an innocent owner's property.

Mississippi's forfeiture law is not exactly friendly to property owners. The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has been challenging forfeiture abuses for years, gives Mississippi a grade of C–. Like the Justice Department's forfeiture program, the Institute for Justice notes, Mississippi promises local law enforcement agencies 80 percent of the proceeds, "creating a troubling conflict of interest and a strong incentive to seize." But federal adoption allows police to claim their cut without going to the trouble of obtaining a warrant, which has been required in Mississippi since 2017, or pressing their case in court. And in Mississippi "the government bears the burden of disproving an innocent owner claim," while federal law requires victims like Munir to prove their innocence.

In addition to the burdens that civil forfeiture imposes on people whose property can be taken even if they are never charged with a crime, this case shows how the prospect of easy money perverts policing. The Clarion-Ledger says Munir's car "caught the eye" of Deputy Gilkerson—possibly because it was a relatively new model with out-of-state plates and a dark-skinned driver. According to Eagan's affidavit, Gilkerson "paced the vehicle" and found it was traveling at "78-80 MPH" on a highway where the speed limit was 70. That was enough to stop the car, although the offense was so minor that Gilkerson gave Mathew a written warning rather than a citation carrying a fine. But Gilkerson was just getting started.

When Gilkerson asked Mathew about his itinerary, the criminal complaint says, Mathew said he was returning to Texas after visiting his girlfriend in Panama City, Florida. Unsatisfied with that response, Gilkerson grilled Mathew further, noticing that he was "very nervous" and that "his lips were shivering/shaking." Gilkerson asked Mathew to get out of the car, ostensibly "so he could hear his response[s] to the questions better." As Mathew exited the car, Gilkerson "noticed that he tucked something between the seats." Gilkerson patted Mathew down and asked if he had any weapons. Mathew said he had a gun in the car, which Gilkerson retrieved.

According to Eagan's affidavit, Gilkerson asked Mathew about "the track marks from injecting illegal narcotics on his arms." Mathew said he had been a drug user but had recently quit, then admitted that "I'm not that clean." Gilkerson asked for consent to search the car, which Mathew declined to give. But that did not matter, because Gilkerson summoned a K9 officer, who conducted "a free sniff of the exterior of the vehicle." The dog "showed a positive indication on the vehicle," which prompted the search that discovered the drugs and the two other guns.

If you want to know how Gilkerson was able to turn a routine traffic stop into an investigation that led to a drug bust, you can ask the Supreme Court. The Court has not only upheld pretextual stops like this one; it has allowed police to interrogate motorists without any evidence of criminal activity, let cops order drivers out of their cars based on general concerns about officer safety, ruled that inspection by a drug-detecting dog requires no special justification, and declared that such an animal's behavior by itself provides probable cause for a search, even though that signal may be invented, imagined, erroneous, or triggered by the handler's subconscious cues. The upshot of those decisions is that police have carte blanche to pull over pretty much anyone (since it is very difficult to drive for any length of time without violating one of the myriad rules governing the maintenance and operation of motor vehicles) and search it for contraband after getting permission from a dog.

If you want to know why police go on these fishing expeditions, the profit motive created by forfeiture laws provides a powerful explanation. In this case, the cops got a car worth about $7,500. But if a search happens to discover a large amount of cash, the cops can (and do) take that too, even if they find no contraband, based on the bare allegation that the money is somehow related to drug trafficking. They get to keep the cash unless the owner mounts a successful (and expensive) challenge to the forfeiture.

Mathew might have a basis to challenge the search that led to his arrest. While the Supreme Court has upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops, it also has said police may not prolong a stop to facilitate such inspections unless they reasonably suspect the driver is involved in criminal activity.

Since everything that came after the warning for speeding that Gilkerson gave Mathew undoubtedly prolonged the traffic stop, Mathew could cite the latter decision to argue that the ensuing search was unconstitutional. Gilkerson no doubt would say that Mathew's nervousness, the track marks on his arm, and the stashed gun provided enough evidence to continue detaining him. But that evidence did not appear until after Mathew got his warning, at which point he was theoretically free to go.

If the search was illegal, a 1965 Supreme Court decision seems to suggest, so was the seizure of Munir's car. In One Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania (the very name of which illustrates the absurdity of such cases, which accuse things rather than their owners of wrongdoing), the Court held that the exclusionary rule, which bars the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, also applies to civil forfeiture proceedings. But that decision noted the "quasi-criminal" nature of the forfeiture, which involved an owner who was charged with violating Pennsylvania's liquor laws.

Since Plymouth, the Court has decided whether the exclusionary rule applies in civil cases by weighing the deterrent benefit against the social cost, always concluding that the latter outweighs the former. It has not squarely addressed the issue of whether the rule applies in civil forfeiture cases where the owner faces no criminal charges. Several federal appeals courts have said it does, while the Texas Supreme Court concluded in 2016 that it does not.

Whether or not Munir could successfully use the exclusionary rule to recover his car, that argument faces the same obstacle as the more straightforward innocent owner defense: While Mathew, as a criminal defendant, has a right to legal counsel even if he can't afford it, Munir has to weigh the cost of hiring a lawyer against the cost of giving up, which might turn out to be lower. Mathew, the guy who was caught with drugs, is therefore better positioned to fight the government than Munir, the guy who unwittingly rented his car to an alleged drug dealer.

NEXT: Another Rogue Cop Just Got Qualified Immunity. The Judge Who Gave It to Him Isn't Happy About It.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Munir, who described Mathew as “a giant nerd” who was “very chatty” and “very friendly,”

    His first sign he was on meth.

    1. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.tyu..Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through
      instructions to get started……….==►►Money90

    2. ●▬▬▬▬PART TcIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●

      I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
      ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

      HERE►USA Dollars.com

  2. And the cops wonder why average citizens despise them.

    1. Unfortunately, they don’t wonder about that at all. They think it is better to be feared than trusted.

      1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.JVf I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

        For more details visit………► Cash Mony System

  3. So if I see a cop do something illegal, like failing to come to a complete stop before making a right on red, can I take his cruiser as an asset forfeiture?

    1. Just make sure you have an army of kids in skinny jeans when you do.

    2. I’ll do you one better. Wait until he has made a drug bust, then you can seize it because he was trafficking drugs with it.

      1. *laughing*

        OK, that was funny. 😀

  4. >>a lawyer he approached told him challenging the forfeiture would cost at least $5,000

    pro se suit can likely be carped from the onlines and the cost would only be the filing fee etc.

    get your car bro.

  5. “The whole good cop/bad cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his Uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop. We need only consider the following: (1) a cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them; (2) many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; (3) therefore every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops.” ~Robert Higgs

  6. IF the cops and their handlers really want to restore their good name and trustorthiness, FIRST end the drug war, which is always the driving force beneath and behind “enhanced” contacts. Every cop dreams of making that HUGE bust and becoming the HEEEEROE of the year. get a medal, and all that stuff. Maybe even a promotion and pa raise.

    The next thing toward the cops are our friends” meme is to end civil asset forfeiture. HOW can an inanimate object with no volition of its own, let alone the capability of ACTING on any volition, be the defendant or plaintiff in any actioin at law? Can even a DOG sue someone? The how can a car? Or a pile of cash? Not to mention that, et the Fed level, the presumptioin is that the “item” has committed the charged action.. and its owner/controller aided and abetted. HOW can this guy prove he did not intend to rent the car to a drug trafficker? It might be in the language of the contract…..if not, better make it so.
    Assets of any kind should ONLY be seized AFTER a clear conviction of crime involving the asset in question, AND establish that the owner/person in control of that item knew and/or was complicit in the illegal activity.

    As long as these tto classes of activity continue (drug war, civil asset forfeiture) no one is safe out in public.

  7. It would be just terrible if the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office happened to burn to the ground, after the doors all mysteriously got chained shut. That would be very sad.

  8. $7500 isn’t a big loss. Anyway get insurance.

    1. I’m guessing no standard insurance policy covers at forfeiture. Usually it doesn’t cover any government action.

      1. That should have read “covers asset forfeiture”

      2. I think when the driver took it out of state in violation of the contract and caused it to be seized, he stole the car. So it’s a theft, which is probably insured against.

        1. The car being treated as stolen when taken out of state would create troubling conclusions of another sort. If someone steals your car and uses it to illegally transport drugs, it can would be subject to asset forfeiture. Not sure how that would even make sense.

          Of course, so much of asset forfeiture makes little sense to me, so what do I know?

  9. This sounds exactly like the “slip and fall” scams run by small time con men. You slip and fall at a big chain and then sue for small potatoes. They will settle for $25k because it costs more than that to litigate.

    The same goes for forfeiture. They took a $5k car from a small operator. Taking a $30k car from a big company would draw a fight. They want the cash.

    That’s why they take immigrant’s life savings, or some old landscaper’s money for buying a tractor with a law designed to seize millions from the bank accounts of drug lords.

    1. That’s why the FGL Transport, Inc case was so weird. I’m hoping that one gets to higher courts and forces precedential change, but I doubt it.

  10. the Court has decided whether the exclusionary rule applies in civil cases by weighing the deterrent benefit against the social cost, always concluding that the latter outweighs the former. It has not squarely addressed the issue of whether the rule applies in civil forfeiture cases where the owner faces no criminal charges.

    So the consideration is whether to screw the innocent, again. Because nobody needs to be deterred against acting innocently, there may be no gain in it for “society” to exclude evidence against the non-wrongdoer. There’s no “cost” to “society” in taking the innocent’s property, because they’re going to act just as innocently regardless.

  11. I am so afraid of civil asset forfeiture, I no longer dare own a car unless it in hock.

    Until a year or so ago, I only ever drove old cars, bought with cash, and drove them until the ‘wheels dropped off’.

    But in my frequent trips across the country, I started getting stopped by cops, first while driving an old Honda and then while driving a small GMC pickup with a 4-cylinder engine.

    Eight times in two years I was stopped but never given a ticket; just a half-hour of my time wasted while cops sat their cars an ran my information.

    ‘Reasons’ for stopping me included window tint too opaque (there are devices they can stick on your window to measure it). Several times, one reason given was “we’ve been getting calls about your driving” (from anonymous cellphone tipsters). Breathalyzer tests, sobriety checks, but no charge. Some cops asked very relevant questions like “are you carrying large amounts of cash”?

    After my GMC pickup crapped out, I bought a later model car for more money and with a monthly payment. When I’m half done paying for it, I’ll get another.

    No stops since. Remember, they must pay off your loan if they seize your property.

    1. Remember, they must pay off your loan if they seize your property.

      I have absolutely no idea why you would think that is true.

    2. No stops since. Remember, they must pay off your loan if they seize your property.

      No, that’s not how that works. *You* are on the hook for the loan.

      The only upside is that the vehicle is collateral for the loan. If you’re willing to take the credit hit you can tell them you’re done and where they can go pick the vehicle up from . . .

  12. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page….Click For Full Details.

  13. I finished my military enlistment in 1984 and proved a bit to eager to return home. I was stopped for speeding outside Alexandria, Louisiana. As he examined my license, the officer could not help but notice my truck carried my belongings. He asked me, “Are you carrying any cash, jewelry, or other valuables?” I was not, of course. I had no idea why he asked the question, and told him I had whatever money was in my wallet. He had no interest in that.

    Only sometime later did I learn of civil asset forfeiture and realized why he asked. I might have been the victim of legal robbery.

    Well, I suppose I was still ripped off. I was arrested, my car was towed, and I had to pay a bondsman to get out of jail. When I sent in payment for my offense, my check was returned. There was no record of my stop for speeding or my arrest. Of course, I was still out for the money paid the bondsman and my towing fee, but I was still much more fortunate than many.

    I recall as the officer was driving me to the local jail, he allowed me to sit in the front seat passenger side. A luxury car having an African-American driver passed, driving in the opposite direction. The officer called in the car, requesting it be stopped and the occupants be checked. By way of explanation, he turned to me and said, “Whenever I see a bunch of n****rs in a nice car like that, I always stop it. The car is always stolen.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.