Indiana Asset Forfetiure Makes The News, Again - Indy Repeating Muncie's Mistakes?

 I saw the headline Lawsuit Claims Indiana Unconstitutionally Seizes Millions in Cash From FedEx Packages Every Year from Reason Magazine and just had to look.

Henry and Minh Cheng, who run a small California jewelry wholesaler business, allege in a class action countersuit filed in Indiana state court that police seized over $42,000 in cash from a FedEx package en route to them from a client in Virginia. County prosecutors then filed a lawsuit to forfeit their money through civil asset forfeiture, claiming the Chengs' money was connected to a violation of a criminal statute, but the complaint never stated which statute.

The Chengs' suit, though, says they're not the only victims. The lawsuit says Indiana law enforcement officials "exploit Indianapolis's location at the Crossroads of America to forfeit millions of dollars in currency being shipped from one side of the nation to the other."

Sounds a bit familiar, this kind of prosecutorial overreach with civil forfeiture.

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police and prosecutors can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even when the owner is not convicted, charged, or even arrested for a crime. Law enforcement groups say civil forfeiture allows them to interdict and disrupt organized crime like drug trafficking by seizing its illicit gains. 

However, civil liberties groups argue lax safeguards and perverse profit incentives lead police to brand any large amount of cash as drug money, even in cases where no drugs are found and even though traveling with large amounts of cash is legal. 

Profit motives... that also sounds familiar, from before I went to prison, here in in Muncie.

IN RE: Mark R. McKINNEY (2011) from the Indiana Suprme Court exposed some of the shenanagins with Indiana's forefeture laws.

We find that Respondent, Mark R. McKinney, while serving as a deputy prosecuting attorney, conducted asset forfeiture proceedings in a manner that created a conflict of interest between his duties as a public official and the private gain he realized in the forfeiture proceedings. On numerous occasions when the ethics of the asset forfeiture procedures were called into question, Respondent turned a blind eye and acted to protect his private interest in his continued pursuit of forfeiture property. For this serious attorney misconduct, we find that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for 120 days with automatic reinstatement.

And in 2021, The Muncie Star-Press reported Officials defend return of Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force:

The Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force ended operations in 2008 amid anger and allegations among local elected officials.

***

McShurley later filed a formal complaint with the Indiana Supreme Court against then-Prosecutor Mark McKinney, in part over his handling for forfeiture litigation while also working as a deputy prosecutor.

In an interview, Hoffman said the debate over distribution of forfeiture assets is over.

"There have been state law changes about forfeiture, and we handle forfeiture differently (in that) nobody in-house does it," the prosecutor said. "Nobody on staff gets paid any forfeiture money."

Yep, time goes by and we get no further along the road.

sch 8/19