The FBI Took Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost.
The twist underscores just how little accountability exists in civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize assets without charging the owner with a crime.
Linda Martin found out the hard way that the most powerful law enforcement agency in the U.S.—the FBI—can seize your assets without articulating why. Worse: Law enforcement took her savings in a raid that was itself unconstitutional. Worse still: A lawsuit she filed met its demise last week, allowing the federal government to continue the dubious practice of taking people's valuables without having to explain the reason it is justified in doing so.
The agency never did furnish a specific reason in Martin's case—because she wasn't charged with a crime. Her saga began in 2021, when the FBI sought to take more than $100 million in assets from U.S. Private Vaults, a business that offered safe-deposit boxes. That company was suspected of, and ultimately charged with, criminal wrongdoing. But the warrant expressly forbade agents from engaging in a "criminal search or seizure" of customers' boxes, like Martin's.
They did so anyway, rummaging through approximately 800 of them and seizing assets that belonged to a slew of innocent people. That included Travis May, who stored gold and $63,000 in cash; Jeni Verdon-Pearsons and Michael Storc, who kept $2,000 in cash, as well as approximately $20,000 worth of silver; Paul and Jennifer Snitko, whose box contained personal items, like marriage, birth, and baptismal certificates; and Don Mellein, who had invested in gold coins, many of which the FBI said it lost (to the tune of over $100,000).
A federal court later ruled that the bureau's actions violated the Fourth Amendment. But it was too late for Martin, who received notice that the FBI had taken $40,200, her life savings, from her box. To justify that, the notice listed hundreds of federal crimes that would lead to a seizure. As Institute for Justice (I.J.) Director of Media Relations Andrew Wimer points out, that included things like copyright infringement and doing business with North Korea. But the bureau notably did not specify how Martin was supposedly connected to any of those offenses, because it is not required to do so.
So she sued. "When the FBI attempts to forfeit someone's property, due process requires that it say why, citing specific facts and laws," reads her appellant brief. "By sending notices that initiate and, often, consummate property's forfeiture—all without ever saying what exactly the FBI thinks justifies the forfeiture, the FBI deprives owners of crucial information they need to protect their rights." After she filed the lawsuit, and about two years post-seizure, the agency returned Martin's cash. But she continued in court in hopes that the judiciary would agree that the FBI was violating people's due process rights by seizing assets with effectively no explanation.
That died last week, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
"The FBI took Linda's savings without clearly saying what she did wrong. That shouldn't happen in America, but taking on the entrenched federal civil forfeiture system is challenging," said Bob Belden, an attorney at I.J. (which represented Martin), in a statement via email. "Unfortunately, there is not a clear path to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. We know that several Justices are alarmed at how civil forfeiture works in America and hope that the right case will work its way to the Court."
Robert Frommer, a senior attorney at I.J., told me in March that "without specific notice, property owners can't understand what this is all about, and therefore can't do any investigation or get meaningful advice from attorneys." That helps explain, he says, why the agency is so successful at avoiding scrutiny for its seizures. "Owners must decide whether to fight against the federal government, default, or plead for mercy, all without knowing why the FBI is doing this to them," he says. "It's therefore little surprise that 93% of federal forfeitures never get to a court, meaning the FBI gets to keep the money without ever telling anyone why they should be allowed to"—which, at least for now, will remain the status quo.
