Personal Legal Bills and Auto Repair for Dallas County (TX) Prosecutor Paid for by Asset Forfeiture
Jennifer Emily at the Dallas Morning News reports:
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who has been criticized recently for using his office’s asset forfeiture funds to settle a claim after a car crash, also used the money to pay attorneys when he was held in contempt of court last year.
The district attorney’s office spent $32,752 on outside counsel in the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2013, according to the Dallas County auditor.
Watkins’ spokeswoman, Debbie Denmon, said at least some of the money went to private attorneys who worked alongside prosecutors on the contempt case, which Watkins ultimately won.
“They were asking for his work product, and he refused to give it up,” Denmon said. “It was his official capacity.”
Attorney Mike Heiskell received about $18,000, Denmon said. Attorney Chad Baruch was also paid with forfeiture funds, but it was unclear how much.
Denmon said she did not know whether attorney Scottie Allen, who also worked on the contempt case, was paid from forfeiture funds. Allen could not be reached for comment.
Watkins was held in contempt in March 2013 when he refused to testify at a hearing where he was accused of seeking to indict a wealthy oil heir to benefit a political benefactor.
A judge held Watkins in contempt and dismissed the charges against the heir. Another judge later tossed the contempt citation; the dismissal of the charges is being appealed.
In February 2013, Watkins rear-ended another driver on the Dallas North Tollway when he was looking at his phone. He used $11,000 to repair the vehicle, which was bought with forfeiture money.
He also paid the driver more than $50,000 to settle a complaint without informing county commissioners. The settlement also required the other driver not to discuss the crash.
A reform bill sponsored by Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-15) in 2011 was supposed to set stricter limits on asset forfeiture. The Texas Courts Municipal Education Center describes this legislation:
Subsections added to Article 59.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide guidance on permissible uses for forfeited property and procedures for the disposition of such property. Under the new provisions, 40 percent is to be allocated to the seizing department, 30 percent to the prosecuting attorney’s office, and 30 percent to the general revenue fund. A list of prohibited uses is added to the article and includes: donations and political contributions, training and travel expenses, the purchase of alcoholic beverages, and payment of salaries for prosecutorial or law enforcement employees.
The bill also sets forth accountability procedures, including audits, designed to ensure the appropriate handling and use of seized assets. The Office of the Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 per violation of Article 59.06.
Detailed reporting requirements concerning the use of forfeiture funds and an auditing process are also added to the Code. The new regulations will be effective on assets seized and expenditures made after the act becomes effective September 1, 2011.
Indeed, the use of forfeiture proceeds to fund legal defense and repair personal automobiles without notifying the Dallas County Commissioners seems to blatantly violate Article 59.06 (d):
Proceeds awarded under this chapter to a law enforcement agency or to the attorney representing the state may be spent by the agency or the attorney after a budget for the expenditure of the proceeds has been submitted to the commissioners court or governing body of the municipality.
It's time for the Texas Legislature to renew the focus on asset forfeiture laws with the understanding that allowing law enforcement direct access to forfeiture funds will inevitably breed abuse and corruption. Without ending this system, and returning the proceeds of asset forfeiture to a general fund directly appropriated by the legislature, it is certain that future scandals stemming from the abuse of forfeiture proceeds is inevitable.
Texas town settles suit with 64-year-old cash seizure victim after revealing that 89% of its revenues came from fines and forfeitures.
The City of Estelline, TX has agreed to pay a 64-year-old woman, Laura Dutton, $77,500 in exchange for dropping her lawsuit against the small municipality. Among the allegations in Ms. Dutton's suit were claims of wrongful arrest, prolonged detention, and unlawful seizure.
In November of 2012, then Estelline Police Officer Jayson Fry stopped Ms. Dutton and her pickup truck, alleging that Dutton was travelling 11 MPH above the posted speed limit. In addition to citing Ms. Dutton for speeding, Officer Fry asked permission to search Dutton's truck. When Ms. Dutton refused permission, Officer Fry contacted Chris Jolly, the Police Chief of nearby Memphis, TX.
Police Chief Jolly showed up with a K9 unit.
The K9 unit then, according to Officer Fry, alerted to Ms. Dutton's truck. The officers subsequently searched Ms. Dutton's truck and found either $29,600 or $31,000 in cash, still bundled in bank currency wrapping. [If $31,000, which sounds more credible, given the other established facts, $1,400 of the seized currency appears to have 'disappeared' after Officer Fry seized it.]
Included in Officer Fry's report was the familiar cataloging of unverifiable elements used to support a finding of probable cause in currency forfeitures. Ms. Dutton, according to Officer Fry, was "nervous, made furtive movements, showed signs of deception and gave evasive answers when he questioned her" (Russell Anglin, Due Diligence, or 'policing for Profit'?: Woman Decries Seizure of Nearly $30K Cash, Amarillo Globe News, Jan. 21, 2013). Fry also claimed to have detected a “'strong odor of unknown origin' that he thought to be marijuana coming from inside Dutton’s Ford F-150 pickup" and from the currency (Id.).
Officer Fry then arrested Ms. Dutton and seized her currency, despite Ms. Dutton's objections that she had no involvement with drugs, and despite her claims that the currency was obtained from a recent real estate transaction.
To the credit of the local District Attorney's office, they refused to prosecute the case, agreed to drop the speeding ticket, and agreed to return Ms. Dutton's seized cash (or at least $29,600 of it), after verifying Ms. Dutton's story.
Ms. Dutton, understandably aggrieved, and probably still smarting from the missing $1,400, sued the City of Estelline, TX.
The City of Estilline settled after revealing (1) that it could not (or would not) produce record of Dutton's roadside interrogation; (2) that the City "had no written drug dog policy, no written arrest policy and no established forfeiture policy"; (3) that the City "maintained no written records of past searches or seizures"; and (4) that "traffic fines and forfeitures made up more than 89 percent of its gross revenues in fiscal year 2012" (Jim McBride, Estelline 'speed Trap' Settles Missing Cash Suit, Amarillo Globe News, July 21, 2014).
Texas: McClennan County DA Announces $1 Million in Forfeiture Revenues Since 2010
Waco News Channel 25 (KXXV) reports:
The McLennan County district attorney's office has reached a big milestone.
They've collected over $1 million worth of forfeited assets in less than four years under DA Abel Reyna.
Reyna released the numbers exclusively to News Channel 25 on Tuesday.
He says the contraband collected is from criminal activity like drug sales, gambling and money laundering.Reyna says, "Asset forfeiture is essentially attacking the fruit of criminal behavior. It's one thing to go after conduct, it's another to go after the property that's a result of that conduct. And you have to be firm on both ends to combat and fight crime."The forfeited assets are either auctioned off, sold or destroyed.
Reyna says the proceeds are distributed between law enforcement, DA and clerk's offices.
