A North Carolina teenager was hoping to get her life back on track after a state judge ordered a man who sexually abused her to pay her $69,000. Instead, she got a nasty surprise.
The local police department had already seized the cash through civil asset forfeiture, and it was already gone. Despite a judge's order, she will get nothing.
The case is a stunning example of the misplaced priorities and perverse incentives that asset forfeiture creates for police—and of how the federal government allows state and local police to evade reforms to stop forfeiture abuse.
As originally reported by local news outlet WCNC Charlotte, the Mint Hill Police Department (MHPD) investigated Mario Alberto Gomez-Saldana II for sexual abuse in 2019. Saldana pleaded guilty to multiple sex crimes years later in 2023 and is currently serving a prison sentence. The now-17-year-old teenage victim's family filed a civil suit against Gomez-Saldana shortly after and secured a consent order for $69,130 to be turned over to her.
WCNC reports:
Records show when MHPD investigated the sex abuse case in July 2019, they found suspected marijuana, drug paraphernalia and cash inside the suspect's home. The victim's family and their attorney said, at the time, an officer assured them the money would be available to one day pursue in a civil suit and in the years after, continued telling them the money remained held in property….
Unbeknownst to them, investigators seized the cash and partnered with a federal agency to apply for asset forfeiture, citing probable cause of illicit drug activity. MHPD investigators never charged the suspect with any drug crimes, only sex offenses, but that didn't prevent the department from eventually collecting more than $45,000 of the seized money in 2020 through what's called the Equitable Sharing Program, according to records. The federal government received the rest of the money.
"I've been dealing with this since I was 5 years old and I'm almost 18 and I just want to move on to the next chapter of my life," the teenager, who is unnamed in the story, told WCNC Charlotte. "That money was going to help me do it and without it, it just feels like three steps back. It's honestly so frustrating and difficult."
Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to illegal activity even if the owner isn't charged with a crime. MHPD could use the drugs in Saldana's house as a premise to take his money, even though, as WCNC reports, a simple Google search shows Saldana won the lottery in 2018, collecting $70,507 in winnings after taxes.
Law enforcement groups say civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool for disrupting organized crime like drug trafficking by targeting its illicit proceeds. However, civil liberties advocates say it lacks due process protections for property owners and creates perverse profit incentives for police.
Forfeiture abuses have led more than half of U.S. states to pass reforms over the last decade, tightening protections for property owners and creating stricter rules for seizing, tracking, and spending forfeiture revenues. North Carolina in fact passed some of the strongest forfeiture reforms in the country; it is one of four states that only allows forfeiture after a criminal conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But under the Justice Department's equitable sharing program, federal authorities may "adopt" state and local civil asset forfeiture cases and pursue them at the federal level. Local police departments who partner with the feds get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, notes that even though police in North Carolina don't make money off of state-level forfeiture, law enforcement agencies across the state collected an estimated $293 million in forfeiture revenue from federal programs between 2000 and 2019.
"Am I at peace with it?" MHPD attorney Scott MacLatchie responded when asked by WCNC Charlotte about the outcome of the case. "I am at peace that we followed the law."'
MacLatchie is correct that the department was perfectly within its rights to seize the money and hand it over to the feds, and opponents of civil forfeiture say that's the problem.
WCNC Charlotte's excellent reporting and the sheer injustice of the case have led to calls from Congress to pass federal legislation to stop cases like this from happening in the future.
As Reason's Jacob Sullum reported, Reps. Tim Walberg (R‒Mich.) and Jamie Raskin (D‒Md.) reintroduced the FAIR Act in March. The legislation includes several major reforms to civil asset forfeiture at the federal level, including eliminating the equitable sharing fund.
"It makes me feel more resolved to get this legislation passed," Walberg told WCNC. "At least the thought can come in people's minds, they changed their approach, and they rushed it more quickly in order to get that $69,000. It really ended up hurting the victim."
The post Sex Crime Victim Denied $69,000 Settlement Because Cops Seized Her Abuser's Cash Through Civil Forfeiture appeared first on Reason.com.
