Man wants his $400K back from the FBI

LimaOhio.com ^ | 12/18/07 | Greg Sowinski

[LibWhacker]

LIMA — Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.’s house this summer may have not gotten his life savings he had in a safe, but after the FBI confiscated it he may not get it back.

Ricks has tried to get an attorney to fight for the $402,767 but he has no money. Lima Police Department officers originally took the money from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said.

“They are saying I have to prove I made it,” he said.

The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.

A representative of the FBI could not be reached for comment.

During the fatal shooting incident inside the house June 30, Ricks and his son were being attacked by two men and his son was stabbed. Ricks broke free, grabbed a gun and shot to death 32-year-old Jyhno Rock inside his home at 939 Greenlawn Ave.

Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.

“I smoke marijuana. I have arthritis. I have shingles, a hip replacement,” he said.

Ricks, who is retired from Ohio Steel Foundry, said he always had a safe at home and never had a bank account.

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Legal Director Jeff Gamso said Ricks has a tough road ahead, not impossible, but tough to get back his money.

“The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you’re innocent. It’s terrible, terrible law,” he said.

The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said.

“The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,” he said.

Still Ricks can pursue it and possibly convince a judge he had the money through a lifetime of savings. Asking the FBI usually doesn’t work, he said.

“The FBI, before they would give it up, would want dated receipts,” he said.

If the FBI does keep the money, it would be put toward a law enforcement use, if the city of Lima does not fight for it because the city discovered it, Gamso said.

Lima Law Director Tony Geiger said he has not been asked to stake a legal claim for the money.

[Cementjungle]

I have no idea what the cutoff would be. Probably 10k

But you're certain there's a law that states the government is allowed to seize your money if you don't have a receipt for it?

[Moonman62]

The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.

Bills have dates on them. His claim should be easy to prove.

[B4Ranch]

OK, you made some good points.

Merry Christmas

[B4Ranch]

offduty would be the better person to ask but I do believe there is.

[Cementjungle]

offduty would be the better person to ask but I do believe there is.

I once was asked by a contractor if I could pay the final $15K to him in cash, so I went to the bank and got the cash for him. Had I been stopped on the way home with the cash, would I have been at risk of having the money seized and tied up in courts for some period of time until I proved where I got the money? What if it was Friday afternoon and the bank closed before I got "caught"?

[offduty]

If you are referring to an amount LE agencies are allowed to seize, the answer is there is no “floor” or “ceiling.”

People get confused over the 10K rule because it is a federal requirement for all banks, car dealers, and jewelers to report CASH transactions over the 10K amount. The burden is on the receiving entity to file the report. This was an attempt to help prevent money laundering because the bad guys would try and convert illicit money into a legal form of currency. There is also a requirement that any cash exchange through Western Union that exceeds 5k be reported as well. This is called “smurfing” It happens a lot where money is sent to Mexico. The bad guys will give a local a couple of hundred dollars to wire the money south. Once the money is in our banking system, it’s difficult to trace. Once it leaves the US, it’s impossible.

There is a tremendous amount of mis-information out here about asset forfeiture. It was certainly not as glamorous as taking down a burglary suspect, and there is a tremendous amount of secrecy involved in the investigations.

Understand this, If you live in Northwest Ohio, any drug that moves from Florida or Texas destined for Detroit goes through the Lima/Toledo area (I-75) If you are moving drugs from New York to Chicago you are also going through Northwest Ohio (I-80 I-90.)

I’m not saying the guy in Lima is dirty, but I think there is a whole lot more to the story than what we’ve seen here.

[Poison Pill]

“he’s up against a law that specifically targets drug dealer’s money”

He sure is. Did he break that law? When a law is broken the police gather evidence, then arrest, charge and try. Did that happen? If not, why?

“the POLICE must make a very solid case that the money is dirty.”

To whom did they make that case? A judge? Was a warrant issued for it? They sure as hell did not make their case to a jury.

“I am far more comfortable believing an actual Freeper police officer that dealt with this than you.”

Who you believe is beside the point. In our system the police investigate crimes and if they come up with enough evidence they charge the suspect with a crime and the whole thing goes to trial. The trail is public and follows a prescribed order. The charged person has redress. It is not something he can get, maybe, it is something the government is forced to provide. You keep talking about the law. Well, was that law broken or not?

“The guy can still get his money back if that’s the case.”

The money isn’t really the issue. The issue for me is that the police be held to account for what they do and how they do it. That account is taken at a public trial in front of a jury. It is far from perfect I’ll grant you but it seems to do the job. This twilight system where a law is referenced but nobody get charged and the “evidence” get carted away is the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

I’ll ask this again. Maybe third time will be the charm. What is so hard with charging this guy with a crime and going to trial?

[LetsRok]

What an idiot. His life saving in a non-interest bearing account (i.e. hiding it under a mattress). A safe is not FDIC insured nad does not help to establish credit.

[offduty]

If you picked up 15K at the bank and were stopped say for a routime traffic violation the scenario would probably go like this: The PC (probable cause) for the stop IS the traffic violation. An officer would have no reason to search your vehicle UNLESS he felt there was an immediate danger to himself or others. He is allowed by the Supreme Court to pat you down for weapons, for his safety. He CANNOT ask you to remove anything from your pockets UNLESS he can later articulate that he felt reasonably certain you had a weapon. A wad of cash does not fit that description.

If, by chance, he would have a drug dog available and the dog alerted to the cash in your pocket, it IS possible he could start the forfeiture process, but there is so much tainted money in circulation I doubt it would happen.

A REASONABLE explaination is usually all that is required to keep the forfeiture process from happening.

[traviskicks]

"“The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you’re innocent. It’s terrible, terrible law,” he said."



Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[M203M4]

Makes my blood boil, even moreso if the police actions are within legal bounds. I'd rather have crooked cops than a crooked country.

[ravingnutter]

Let me ask you, when you first started working 40 years ago....what was your gross wages? could you afford to save 10K a year from that?

Maybe as wages increased, so did the percentage he put in his savings. Maybe he paid off his house and then kept putting that amount in savings each month...that is one reason we managed to save the $10,000 down payment to build our new house. Heck, maybe he simply follows a Dave Ramsey plan of living modestly. I know people that are over their heads in debt that think I'm wierd because I don't like credit cards and still use checks to pay my bills.

There are alot of ways you can amass that type of cash in 40 years without being a criminal. As I stated to another poster, being eccentric isn't a crime. And as for the pot, in most states, a small amount of pot is a misdemeanor. I don't see why the FBI would get involved with a small time drug bust unless it was the sheer value of the money that attracted their attention.

[Shryke]

As far as I can tell, the law we are dealing with was designed to take drug dealer's money, specifically in places where no "drug dealing" was occurring. I see where you are coming from: he wasn't committing a crime at the time, so what's the problem? The law says there IS a problem. SO far, he has elected NOT to use the provided remedy.

Hey, you may think the law is crap. That's fine. I know why they wrote it. The government wants its taxes.

[supercat]

Every day that goes by and this doesn't happen I'm amazed given what fedgov thinks is within their power to do to us.

I'd like to see a web site listing government thieves, thugs, and murderers. I'm not sure how one could practically vet the information, but even if the web site explicitly requested that people not do anything unlawful against the agents in question, social pressure might make it difficult for those agents to go out in public without being asked "Hey there Mr. Dogblaster. How many pooches did you slaughter this week?" So far as I know, there's nothing illegal about asking somebody such a question when they're seen them in public (particularly if any given person only does it once) but such pressures might encourage other agents to avoid getting on the list.

[microgood]

Look, the ACLU won’t take the case. The ACLU!

Its because they realize it is hopeless. This guy has to prove he is innocent. And that is impossible to do, which is why those evil scum can take the money with impunity.

[logic]

Tag for obnoxious commenting later :)

[Squantos]

Yep.......saw such sh*t firsthand . Asshats would go out of their way to make an arrest where the private property could be impounded. When the FLEA’s & LEO’s discussed such it was always a point to ponder . What kind of asset’s does the bad guy own and can we hurt him as we arrest him etc .........

Common practice backed and justified by a valid arrest for criminal activity.

[Does so]

Tag for obnoxious commenting later :) Make sure offduty is not on the Internet; between his 20+ years in LE and my 27 years in LE, he's got it exactly right. The only thing I'd add is how difficult—and paperwork filled—law enforcement has become due to PC. Beat cops have never had it so rough than today.

[ColdSteelTalon]

It theft. The FBI are thieves backed by badges and guns.

Hmmmm only one remedy for that...

[microgood]

What an idiot. His life saving in a non-interest bearing account (i.e. hiding it under a mattress). A safe is not FDIC insured nad does not help to establish credit.

Actually I agree with you on the interest part, but that even makes it easier to seize. The way the asset forfeiture laws work, if an angry neighbor called the cops and said you were growing pot, and they came and searched your house and found nothing, they can stil seize you house and all you bank accounts and force you prove they were obtained legitimately, which is, of course impossible.

And the Supreme Court said that is just fine.