Jason Clayworth

jclayworth@dmreg.com

Iowa announced Monday that it has disbanded its state forfeiture team and — in a separate move — also agreed to pay $60,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two California gamblers whose bankroll was seized during a warrantless search in 2013 by two Iowa State Patrol troopers.

The so-called "interdiction" unit's key focus was to stop vehicles traveling along Interstate Highway 80 suspected of being involved in drugs or other crimes. It was a part of the Iowa Department of Public Safety and had become a target in recent years from critics who alleged the team used unconstitutional practices to seize private property for law enforcement profits.

Multiple national groups that have advocated for forfeiture reform — including the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation — praised Iowa’s move to dismantle the interdiction team. But they also predicted legal issues about property right abuses will persist unless Iowa follows what at least a dozen other states have done in the last two years and reform its forfeiture law.

“Today’s decision is an important step to protect Iowans’ property and due process rights from forfeiture abuse, but the state must do more,” said Lee McGrath, an attorney for the Minnesota office of the Institute for Justice, a group headquartered in Virginia that advocates for limited government.

Civil forfeiture is a legal procedure that allows law enforcement to confiscate money or goods without criminal charges or convictions. Until the 1980s, its use was generally limited in scope and targeted convicted drug kingpins.

But critics contend changes in federal and state laws over the last four decades have led to so-called "policing-for-profit" situations. They say law enforcement agencies are increasingly incentivized to seize cash and items under constitutionally questionable scenarios and that the forfeitures have not resulted in significant cuts to crime.

The April 2013 seizure of $100,020 from California gamblers William “Bart” Davis and John Newmerzhycky raised national questions about whether Iowa and other states are abusing the civil forfeiture process.

In that case Iowa troopers Justin Simmons and Eric VanderWiel seized the money after pulling the vehicle over along I-80 in Poweshiek County for failure to use a turn signal. Troopers justified the search partly on Newmerzhycky's alleged fidgeting and nervousness.

The two troopers found the cash and a small amount of marijuana during a search, which resulted in Newmerzhycky later pleading guilty to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. (Both men had medical marijuana cards from California at the time of the stop.)

The men argued the search was illegal, saying video shows they properly signaled.

DATABASE: Iowa forfeiture profit by county

The Poweshiek County Attorney's Office sought to seize the money under Iowa's civil forfeiture law, but ultimately returned $90,000 of the $100,020 to the California men through a settlement agreement. (The remainder of the original seized amount — $10,020 — was divided among local and state law enforcement agencies.)

The lawsuit filed in 2014 sought damages, including attorney fees, beyond the amount that was originally seized. It claimed the troopers had no probable cause to detain the men for a search of their vehicle and that officers had been taught improper techniques for justifying the search. A judge in 2015 ruled that Newmerzhycky's guilty plea to the drug charge did not bar him from bringing a civil claim.

Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Peterzalek recommended Monday’s $60,000 settlement in “light of the complexity of the case and the potential exposure to the state.” The settlement is on top of the $90,000 that was already returned to the gamblers.

Jeff Thompson, also of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s office, told the board Monday that the Iowa Department of Public Safety had disbanded the interdiction team. He said state and local law enforcement agencies may continue to pursue forfeitures but not under the concerted effort of the longtime interdiction team. He said the decision to disband was not based on Monday’s settlement.

“It (the interdiction team) essentially led to a number of stops and seizures,” Thompson said. “The whole process, that whole concept, has been somewhat under attack.”

The interdiction team was dismantled because of increased personnel demands, including increased focus to reduce Iowa traffic deaths, said Sgt. Nathan Ludwig of the Iowa State Patrol. There are no plans to resurrect the team. The troopers assigned to the interdiction unit have been reassigned to general patrol duties, he said.

Ludwig did not respond to a specific question about how or who made the ultimate decision to end the interdiction team. Ben Hammes, a spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad, said the governor was not involved in the decision.

Glen Downey, the attorney for the two gamblers, said he believes the state's actions to settle the case while simultaneously ending its interdiction team coincide despite Thompson saying the two were independent decisions.

“The true importance of this lawsuit was that it forced the state of Iowa to re-examine its decades-long practice of pushing the constitutional boundaries of the state’s civil asset forfeiture law and to disband the Iowa Drug Interdiction Team,” Downey said Monday.

The three-member Iowa Appeal Board — State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, State Auditor Mary Mosiman and Iowa Department of Management Director Dave Roederer — unanimously approved Monday’s settlement.

A series of Des Moines Register investigations following the 2013 stop shows Iowa law enforcement now confiscates cash, vehicles and real estate from at least 1,000 people each year, many without criminal charges. State and local governments reported fewer than two dozen such cases each year in the 1980s, the reports showed.

The seizures have pumped more than $55 million in cash to state and local law enforcement agencies in Iowa, often the same departments that are confiscating the money.

An ongoing lawsuit alleges widespread abuse in Pottawattamie County and state legislators from both parties have called for the end of the civil forfeiture practice, some advocating that seizure only be used in cases involving criminal charges or convictions.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has also pursued a limit to forfeitures at the federal level and continues with those efforts.

Jason Snead, a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., contends civil forfeiture is still useful in narrow circumstances that could include situations when someone is granted criminal immunity in exchange for testimony. But even in those cases the burden of proof should be upon the government, he said.

“We’ve always taken the position that civil forfeiture should still exist but it needs, in most cases, to be rather radically reformed to get it back to its original purpose,” Snead said.