MONEY SEIZURE PUTS FOCUS ON STATE LAW

The seizure of $27,000 by the Lincoln County Sheriff's Department
during a traffic stop in March has raised questions about the scope of
the state's asset forfeiture laws.

The money, which has since been returned to the owners, was seized
during a routine stop on Interstate 55 when a deputy found it in a
plastic bag in the vehicle's trunk. A thorough search of the vehicle
after the discovery failed to find any controlled substances or
illegal contraband, but deputies took the money under the state's
money-laundering statute.

The money-laundering statute passed by the Mississippi legislature in
1998 allows law enforcement officers to seize cash -- even without the
presence of illegal substances -- if they suspect the money was
generated through unlawful activity. It does not specify how long a
law enforcement agency can hold the funds.

The vehicle was occupied by Palestinian immigrants Atiya Saleh and
Shareer Quattom and Jordanian immigrant Majed Atta, all of New
Orleans, who claimed the money originated from a business transaction.
Their story was recently documented in a page one article and an
editorial in the New Orleans newspaper, The Times-Picayune.

Saleh and Quattom had sold a grocery store in New Orleans to Atta
earlier in the day, and the $27,000 was part of the down payment,
Saleh said. They did not deposit the money in the bank because it
would be used the next day as part of a down payment on a gasoline
station.

Lincoln County Sheriff Wiley Calcote questioned that account.

"The only document they had was that they had sold one store and were
buying another store, but there was nothing tying the money to that
transaction, and they gave conflicting information about the amount
and origin of the money," Calcote said.

The three men were traveling to Jackson to help Atta move his
belongings to New Orleans when they were stopped by Lincoln County
Deputy David Johnson for weaving in the road. They gave permission for
the vechile to be searched. The money was found, but nothing else

The men said they were handcuffed and forced to stand on the side of
the road for several hours before being taken to the county jail,
where they were strip-searched. They were released after several hours
of questioning, but the sheriff's office refused to release the money,
pending further investigation.

A careless driving citation was the only charge levied against any of
the men.

Calcote said the investigation was turned over to the Internal Revenue
Service early in the case, because they had more resources they could
devote to it.

Saleh has a theory of his own.

"My own belief is that they were trying to convince the IRS that it
was a good seizure, and they could keep the money, but they couldn't
get enough evidence that it was not legitimate," Saleh said.

Calcote and Lincoln County Sheriff's Department Narcotics Capt. Dustin
Bairfield, one of the investigating officers, said the money would not
have stayed in Lincoln County regardless of the investigation's outcome.

"Under the money laundering statute, the money goes to the state
treasurer," Bairfield said. "We would not have received a dime of it
under state law."

Robert Byrd, an assistant district attorney for the 14th District,
agreed.

"That's a relatively new law, and there's only been one case that has
gone to the Supreme Court," he said. "There's been very little case
law to further define that law."

Only money seized in conjunction with drugs is returned to law
enforcement agencies, Byrd said.

Eighty percent of the money seized in drug cases under the state asset
forfeiture laws is returned to the agency that made the arrest, with
20 percent going to the district attorney's office. In other cases,
Byrd said, such as when more than one agency is involved in the
seizure, the money is distributed differently.

Calcote said his office acted in accordance with state law.

"As long as it's still under investigation and (the investigation) is
moving forward, (the money) can be held," Calcote said. "You can't
just sit on (the case) for a year and not do anything with it, but
(the money) can be held as long as it's being investigated."

The federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000 requires the government
to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used
to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was involved in
the commission of a crime. Law agencies must show there was a
substantial connection between the property and the crime.

The law also allows property owners to sue the government for
compensation for damage to their property if they prevail in civil
forfeiture actions.

Bairfield said the $27,000 was released as soon as the IRS gave its
approval. The final documentation needed to prove the money's
legitimacy arrived two weeks ago from the men's attorney and was
forwarded to the IRS.

Bairfield admits he told the men he thought the case would be resolved
in about 10 days, but he said he did not realize it would take the IRS
a month to even look at the case.

"They were informed that their money would be returned to them if it
all checked out and was found to be legitimate money," Calcote said.

Saleh said he received the full $27,000 by check Tuesday morning.

He said Mississippi should take "a hard look" at its asset forfeiture
laws.

"I'm not aware of all the legalities, but if what they are doing is
legal, it needs to be looked at," he said.