Border Patrol Seized Her $40,000—Without Charging Her With a Crime
"We created a monster," says Brad Cates, who helped write civil forfeiture laws as director of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture office.
Did you know that in most of America, police can take your property, even if you did nothing wrong?
They don't have to charge you with a crime. They don't have to take you to court.
They can just say they suspect you of a crime.
Then they can grab your money, your car, and sometimes even your house!
It's legal because of something called "civil asset forfeiture."
My new video shows how police abuse such laws to take things from innocent people.
Restaurant owner Mandrel Stuart was stopped by police in Virginia when driving. Stuart thought, at worst, he'd get a ticket. But in his car was $18,000, which he planned to use to buy equipment for his restaurant.
When the cops saw that, they said they didn't believe it was for his restaurant, and they confiscated it.
"They said that I was a drug dealer," he complains. "They had no proof!"
In most states, they don't need proof. The money alone gives police "probable cause" that a crime was committed. Still, the police let him go. But they kept his money.
Anthonia Nwaorie, a Texas nurse, worked years to save $40,000 so she could start a medical clinic in Nigeria.
At the airport, however, Border Patrol asked her about the money. No matter what she said, they didn't believe her.
"They poured everything, my clothes, my personal things, on the floor….I didn't know they were going to take the money!"
They did, although they never charged her with a crime.
Fortunately, she turned out to be one of the rare victims who got the money back.
Libertarian law firm the Institute for Justice helped her sue the Border Patrol.*
Today, even the technique's original proponents have second thoughts:
"We were proud of it. We were taking Colombian narcotics money," says Brad Cates, who helped write civil forfeiture laws as director of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture office.
Now, he says that his laws caused new problems but didn't reduce drug sales.
"We took billions and billions of dollars out of the system, but it didn't stop (drug trafficking), did it?…We created a monster."
A slush fund for police agencies.
Musician Eh Wah was stopped because he had a broken brake light. In his car was $53,000 his band had raised for charity.
Oklahoma cops told him they'd let him go. But they would keep the cash.
The Institute for Justice took his case, too. Alban notes that the cops let Wah keep everything that was in the form of checks.
"Even though the $53,000 in cash they had seized was 'drug proceeds,' the money on the checks apparently wasn't. The reason…was because they couldn't cash the checks."
Only after The Washington Post reported on Wah's loss, and how police took money meant for an orphanage, did the cops drop the case and return the money.
The good news: Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New Mexico have now banned civil asset forfeiture. Before government gets to grab your property, you must be found guilty of a crime.
About two dozen other states have changed their laws, so less money seized will stay with the cops.
That's a good thing. As Alban points out, "We have to eliminate the profit incentive."
I think another reason these abusive practices continued for so long is because lawyers use stupid lawyer language, calling the money grab "civil asset forfeiture" instead of something like "police theft!"
If they called it that, America might have gotten rid of it years ago.
You can watch the full documentary about this abuse at WhenCopsBecomeRobbers.com.
COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article mischaracterized a quote. It has been removed.
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
Meanwhile Somalis are flying out of Minneapolis twice a week with millions in cash stuffed in their suitcase.
Stutation please, PervFectly Lying Slut! Is "IceTrey" a gnome dee plumb-stupid for Spermy Daniels? Cuntquering minds want to KNOW, damn-shit!!!
Meanwhile, IceTrey/Spermy Daniels is torturing and then killing and drinking the blood of the Good Blonde-Eyed and Blue-Haired innocent new-born Christian babies after brutally, ritually, and shitually offering said blood to Satan...
'"We were proud of it. We were taking Colombian narcotics money," says Brad Cates, who helped write civil forfeiture laws as director of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture office. Now, he says that his laws caused new problems but didn't reduce drug sales.'
I guess if Cates really felt guilty he could immolate himself in front of the DOJ HQ.
Just be glad we didn't launch an airstrike or two on yah. Damn ingrates!
I think another reason these abusive practices continued for so long is because lawyers use stupid lawyer language, calling the money grab "civil asset forfeiture" instead of something like "police theft!"
Yeah, but if you go down that rabbit hole you might get the idea that taxes are state-sponsored theft, that tariffs are more like a legit/voluntary protection fee, and that "borders are just abstract social constructs" might cut both ways with some pretty obvious downsides.
It’s a stretch to call tariffs ‘voluntary’.
Thus legit/voluntary.
If my bank charges more because we have locks on the doors, armed guards, and a safe, you're free to choose a bank that doesn't have those and, as long as I'm not the one actively supporting the theft of your merchandise, if it gets stolen, that's on you. Moreso if the likelihood of it getting stolen without my or other protection is exceptionally high. This is especially pointed WRT to Minnesota.
Similarly, you're free, especially at the personal level, to ship stuff back and forth across international waters as you see fit. The problem comes in when you're shipping hundreds of shipping containers of material along defended shipping lanes to and from national ports of call.
After The Boston Tea Party, it's a stretch to declare any given government scheme to protect domestic trade clearly afoul of Classical Liberalism. Again, until The Civil War our government was near exclusively funded by tariffs and, until WWII, was predominantly funded by tariffs.
Moreover, none of this is really exceptionally afoul of interventionism, property rights, or the NAP under international law. If tariffs are an unforgivable libertarian sin on the national stage, then embargoes and international sanctions are way, way worse.
I think another reason these abusive practices continued for so long is because leftards use stupid lawyer language, calling the money
grab "civil asset forfeiture""entitlements" instead of something like"police theft!"Government Theft.If they called it that, America might have gotten rid of it years ago.
The blame on 'border patrol' is but a needle-in-the-haystack of the REAL issue with 'government' STEALING everything from those 'icky' people.
How can a judge read the text of 5A and 14A and think that civil asset forfeiture laws are even remotely constitutional?
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Who pays judges salary? Maybe they aren't truly independent, eh?
In some unfathomably tortuous logical gymnastics, the property is charged not the person(s). See: United States v. One 1949 Pontiac Sedan et al, 194 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1952).
If you look at what civil asset forfeiture was originally used for, it was defensible. That practice is far-removed from current practice but it's helpful to know how we got here and why it can't simply be abolished.
Consider a smuggler with a boat full of contraband. About to be caught, the smuggler jumps overboard and swims to safety in the dark. You now have a boat full of self-evident contraband floating in the river. The owner will never come forward to claim it because that would be an admission to the crime of smuggling. But you can't just keep it forever because it's a whopping big ship full of dangerous stuff. Civil Asset Forfeiture was originally the legal process by which the government took ownership of that self-evidently contraband stuff so they could dispose of it.
The modern equivalent would be a kilo of heroin dropped in the middle of the street during an interrupted drug deal. You can't just leave it there. And again, no sane person is going to say 'that's my stuff'. CAF is still needed to take ownership of that stuff for disposal.
The problem is that CAF has been vastly expanded by legislatures and police to things that are not self-evidently contraband and to circumstances where they do know the owner. CAF should never be available in those circumstances.
"Brad Cates, who helped write civil forfeiture laws as director of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture office."
Your confession is too little, too late, Brad. As you are burning in hell for all eternity, please remember that you will not be forgiven.