In short, an anonymous (and bogus) tip led the DEA to raid Miladis’ home and seize $15,000 in cash. Read the article for more details, but eventually the government admitted that there was no evidence that the money was tied to a crime.
Miladis spent years in court before the government gave up on taking her money. But when they did throw in the towel, government attorneys closed the case in a way that could have allowed them to reopen it later. Very sneaky, because….
This meant they could claim Miladis wasn’t the “prevailing party” and that the government didn’t have to pay her attorneys’ fees. Without an award of fees, she will lose about $5,000 to pay for her legal representation. But….
This is not what Congress intended when it passed forfeiture reform 20 years ago. The law, CAFRA, was supposed to make it easier for prevailing parties in civil forfeiture cases to get attorneys’ fees.
Making it almost impossible to get attorneys’ fees tilts the scales even more heavily in the government’s favor #civilforfeiture proceedings.
First, you aren’t entitled to an attorney in civil forfeiture. That means many people facing forfeiture are not able to get legal representation.
Second, fighting a case without an attorney is practically impossible. Not filing the correct form, at the correct time and in the correct way means losing the property forever.
Third, the standard of proof for the government to win is lower than in criminal cases. Basically, the government just has to show that there is a 51% chance the property is connected to criminal activity.
All of this means many people don’t fight back. According to @IJ’s Policing for Profit, 88% of federal civil forfeiture cases never come before a judge: ij.org/wp-content/upl…
Miladis lost her fight for attorneys’ fees at the district and circuit courts, but now she is working with @IJ to appeal her case to #SCOTUS. Read the cert petition from @JustinPearsonIJ and @DanAlban here: ij.org/wp-content/upl…