In August 2010, while searching for an officer’s stolen handgun, Harrisburg police seized tens of thousands of dollars in cash from Antoine Black’s home on Logan Street.

Black is claiming in a federal lawsuit that the cops should have left that money alone, especially since they didn’t find the missing gun in his house or charge him with a crime.

He is arguing that the seizure of the cash, which authorities unsuccessfully sought to forfeit by attempting to link it to drug dealing, violated his constitutional rights.

The 42-year-old Black also claims authorities didn’t return all the money they took after an arbitration board appointed by Dauphin County Court rebuffed the forfeiture request in March. He contends that nearly $43,000 was seized and that he received only $28,980 back.

City spokesman Robert Philbin declined to discuss Black’s U.S. Middle District Court case.

District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr., whose office lost the forfeiture action against Black’s money, insisted that officers had solid legal grounds to confiscate the cash.

Evidence of drug activity found in the home justified the seizure, even though criminal charges weren’t filed against Black after the August 2010 search, Marsico said.

County court records show that at the time of the search, Black was facing an unrelated drug possession charge filed by city police in connection with a June 2010 traffic stop.

Marsico said the amount of money seized from Black’s home was over-estimated initially and that the $28,980 figure is accurate. All cash that was taken was given back to Black after the arbitration ruling, he said.

In his federal suit against the city and its police, Black claims police searched his home for the police officer's stolen gun based on incorrect information from an informant. The gun in question, plus other police gear, had been taken from the officer's parked car.

During the search, police took $13,940 from a purse in his home and $29,000 that was in a Tastykake box on the third floor, Black claims.

Black’s lawyer in the federal suit, Robert S. Mirin, said he had not asked Black why he had so much cash in the house.

“He feels he is owed this money,” Mirin said of Black’s reason for suing. “He feels there are civil rights issues also.”

Black, who seeks more than $75,000 in damages, contends in the suit that his family was “greatly upset” by what he argues was an unjustified search and seizure.

Marsico said the money seizure was justified because cocaine residue was found in Black’s home during the failed hunt for the gun.

The forfeiture petition his office filed for the cash indicated that such residue was detected on a scale and in plastic bags in the house. Marsico said the cash itself also tested positive for drug residue.

Officers therefore had legal grounds to impound Black’s money even though the search warrant was only issued regarding a search for the stolen police pistol, Marsico said. In such cases, he said, officers can react to illegal activity they see that is not specified in a warrant.

The presence of that much cash in Black’s house would not alone have been enough to justify its seizure since it isn’t illegal to have large amounts of currency in your abode, said Wesley Oliver, an associate professor at Widener Law School’s Susquehanna Township campus.

Even drug residue on the bills wouldn’t have provided enough justification, he said, because “30 [percent] to 40 percent of the cash in America is tainted with cocaine.”

However, Oliver said the cash seizure could be justified by other evidence of illegal drug activity at the site.

Black is pursuing his federal suit while battling the criminal charges in his Dauphin County Court drug possession case.

In that case, Harrisburg police claim they pulled him over for a traffic violation and found 30 bags of crack cocaine in a car he was driving. Black is scheduled for trial in the drug case in December.