Springer Appeal Strikes Out

[.]

Clearly the IRS needs some way to ascertain and then warn their agents and officers that they are dealing with a litigious whack-job before they execute a search warrant, so as to avoid the later waste of time in court over various fantasies.

Not to mention a directive to never take anything the spouse of any whack-job says about anything at face value.

Failing that, it's simple. Count the damned money. Even if it requires a call for some low-level flunky to do it.

Oh, well. Close enough for government work.

[wserra]

somewhere along the line I would suspect that rules weren't followed.

Rules weren't clear.

A couple of years ago, the Justice OIG undertook an investigation of the DEA's procedures for handling seized cash. Although the DEA Manual required counting cash on the scene "where practical", agents actually did so only about 16% of the time (with another 15% "Unable to determine"). It turned out that nobody had any idea what "practical" meant, so not counting at the scene became the rule. Recommendation #1:

Clarify the policy on counting seized cash and clearly define the circumstances under which it is and is not required to count cash at the time of seizure.

So I wouldn't even say that the Springer situation was sloppiness by the agents. It was more likely sloppiness by the agency. All the more reason why a Bivens action was due to hubris rather than intelligence - as Dan said.

[notorial dissent]

WES, I quite agree. I doubt it is either practical or even reasonable to expect an exact and complete count of large quantities of money at a site, anymore than doing a complete inventory when a large quantity of weapons or whatever is seized, if only for practical and logistical reasons, and my understanding from my sources is that it is, as you say, rarely done. My feeling is that the agents were following procedure, such as it was, and that it came back to bite them in the behind eventually.

My understanding would be that seized money would be put in either an evidence bag or box and sealed at the site, carted back to the office and properly counted, and then resealed. We don't know from the evidence/affidavits given what happened between seizure and counting at the bank, which is why I would say sloppy, since I would think at some point there would have been something said like "it was sealed in a bag and never touched until we took it to the bank" or the equivalent, and yet nothing was said by either side, sloppy on the gov'ts side if they had something they didn't want to say, or sloppy on the other side for not asking, unless they knew they wouldn't like the answer, which is more probable. Or as you point out, hubris on Springer's side and a general waste of time and money. My personal feeling is that the money was bagged and never touched again until it was taken to the bank.

[ASITStands]

We don't know from the evidence/affidavits given what happened between seizure and counting at the bank, which is why I would say sloppy, since I would think at some point there would have been something said like "it was sealed in a bag and never touched until we took it to the bank" or the equivalent, and yet nothing was said by either side, sloppy on the gov'ts side if they had something they didn't want to say, or sloppy on the other side for not asking, unless they knew they wouldn't like the answer, which is more probable. Or as you point out, hubris on Springer's side and a general waste of time and money. My personal feeling is that the money was bagged and never touched again until it was taken to the bank.

Exactly why Judge Frizzell (who was closer to the declarations and arguments than we) said it required a jury to unravel the fact issues. Differing accounts as to what happened.

I agree with 'Famspear' in his summation and with those who suggest the current protocol is unsatisfactory if it results in this kind of sloppiness or wasting of time and money. It leaves a very unsatisfactory result, or "bad taste in the mouth," if you will, and it's STILL unresolved.

Springer will most likely appeal this decision, and we'll still be looking at it six months on.

[grixit]

It appears that this is the rare situation where it is the cops who got off on a technicality. Said technicality being Springer's inability to just file a simple complaint.

[Dezcad]

Not that this is any surprise, but Lindsey has had yet another Petition for writ of certiorari denied. He is a consistent 0-fer.

No. 10-8484
Title:
Lindsey K. Springer, Petitioner
v.
Christopher D. Albin, et al.
Docketed: January 20, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5088)
Decision Date: October 15, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan 13 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 22, 2011)
Feb 1 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Christopher D. Albin, et al. to respond filed.
Feb 10 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 25, 2011.
Feb 28 2011 Petition DENIED.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Lindsey K. Springer 02580-063 (918) 748-5539
B16-FCI
1900 Simler Avenue
Big Springs, TX 79720
Party name: Lindsey K. Springer
Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ
Party name: Christopher D. Albin, et al.

[LPC]

Not that this is any surprise, but Lindsey has had yet another Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

That was from the dismissal of Springer's "Bivens" action for the money that was lost/miscounted during the search of his home.