Professional gamblers vs. DEA
 

In August 2006, professional gamblers and Nevada residents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson attempted to return from San Juan to Las Vegas carrying $97,000 in cash ($30k in "seed" money plus $67k in gambling proceeds). TSA screeners in San Juan alerted the DEA. When Fiore and Gipson arrived in Atlanta for their connecting flight to Las Vegas, DEA agents questioned them and, ultimately, seized the funds, refusing to leave them even enough for cab fare.

Later, after having been provided abundant documentation showing that the funds seized were in fact legitimate gambling proceeds and not drug trafficking monies, the lead agent submitted a "misleading" probable cause affidavit to support the forfeiture of the funds. The Asst. US attorney assigned to the case ultimately refused to go forward due to the lack of probable cause. The $97k was returned to Fiore and Gipson some 7 months after it was seized.

Fiore and Gipson sued the Atlanta DEA agents in federal district court in Nevada, alleging violation of their constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the DEA agents, finding that the alleged violations took place in Atlanta and not Nevada.

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even though the initial seizure occurred in Atlanta and was thus not actionable in Nevada, the lead DEA agent's action in pursuing the forfeiture of the funds were directed at Fiore and Gipson in Nevada and were intended to affect them in Nevada and were, for that reason actionable in Nevada.

What this means is that even though you can't sue in your home state for actions that were taken by the TSA or others at an airport elsewhere, if government agents continue to "pursue" you in your home state, by initiating unlawful forfeiture proceedings, for example, as occurred here, you can sue them on your home turf. A small victory for travelers.

See the Ninth Circuit decision here.

I hope these gamblers win. It would be nice to see a few overzealous government thugs be forced from their homes and driven into a life of poverty.

Too bad we're going to pay for the settlement the gamblers deserve. Meanwhile, the same government agents involved in this fiasco probably never even got a slap on the wrist for this.

Detroit-Windsor tunnel and Peace Bridge in Niagara Falls are the two worst place to cross if you're a professional gambler.

CBP will look for any excuse to seize the money, if it's over, say, $30K, even if you try to declare it.

The problem has long been, when a drug dealer goes on trial for money laundering, he'll claim he won the money gambling quite a bit of the time.

Without having read the USCA9's decision, I'm not sure I agree with it, I think you have to sue in Atlanta, but it's definitely a victory for professional gamblers.

Not a gambler, and don't travel with cash, but it seems to me, that gamblers in border cities could open a US dollar account at a Canadian bank, deposit the winnings, and wire the funds home. Would that work? Or cut yourself a check and declare and deposit it?

So the answer is not to put in the additional work it takes to build a case against the drug dealers, the answer is to assume anyone carrying large amounts of cash is guilty.

Pretty shady, particularly when 1) the confiscation takes place immediately, with no unbiased investigation and legal process and 2) there are undoubtedly incentives in place for CBP to pad their numbers with these lucrative and easy 'catches'.

In the end, even if the gamblers get their money back, there's no way to really make them whole. Who reimburses them for time lost, legal costs, etc?

And now you start subjecting yourself to all sorts of reporting regulations regarding large transfers of currency, having to pay international currency transfer fees, and so on. Yes, it can be done ... but at a price of time, convenience, and perhaps even money. (Hard to get free checking accounts anywhere these days.) Crossing the border with cash-in-hand, assuming one completes all the necessary forms, is certainly more convenient.

Clearly, Tovarisch jkhugginsovich, you do not understand the situation.

You must prove to the satisfaction of the State, that you are not guilty of anything the State now believes or might believe in the future or has believed in the past might be a crime against the state, or seek alternative means to protect your goods from arbitrary seizure without oath, affirmation or warrants issued.

If you are unable to prove you didn't do it, then you must suffer the consequences, comrade. Why is this so difficult to understand?:)

Rule for dealing with KGB CBP: Know before you go, and when you find out, let us know too, preferably before they change their mind.


[And besides, it still gets reported, but your banks do it for you, in exchange for the fees. Even if you declare it, they can still seize it if they think they can justify it, and if not, you pay lawyers to get it back, and after a year or two, you will. I'll pay the Western Union fees. Cash is always more convenient, but harder to get back once someone takes it.]

Well, you're not alone. Dissenting Circuit Judge Ikuta agrees with you.

What's important to understand is that the majority clearly distinguished between what was done to Fiore and Gipson while they were in Atlanta and was done by the DEA lead agent after they had arrived home, provided proof regarding both their professions and the source of the seized funds, and demanded the return of their funds. The former conduct occurred in Atlanta - end of story. The latter conduct, as the majority explained, was "expressly aimed" at Nevada, and not Georgia. The majority found that the lead agent, "from the outset," "aimed his actions at people and property he knew . . . were not local." The agent knew that the destination of the funds, at the time of the seizure, was Las Vegas, and in fact promised to return the funds to Fiore and Gipson in Las Vegas if they were able to prove the legitimacy of the funds (although he later reneged on this promise). When the funds ultimately were returned to Fiore and Gipson, they were returned to them in Las Vegas. Whether or not Fiore and Gipson were residents of Nevada was not the issue, either; rather, what was significant was that the agent intentionally performed certain acts knowing that those acts would have consequences in Nevada, because of the ties that both the money and Fiore and Gipson had to that state.

Of course, none of this would have happened if the TSA had not reported the cash to the DEA in the first place. Of course, this was in 2006, well before the role of TSA agents was so clearly defined as it is today. [<-- sarcasm intended]

[QUOTE=nhcowboy;17096502]In August 2006, professional gamblers and Nevada residents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson attempted to return from San Juan to Las Vegas carrying $97,000 in cash ($30k in "seed" money plus $67k in gambling proceeds). TSA screeners in San Juan alerted the DEA. When Fiore and Gipson arrived in Atlanta for their connecting flight to Las Vegas, DEA agents questioned them and, ultimately, seized the funds, refusing to leave them even enough for cab fare.
==================================================
San Juan, PR; Do you need to declare valuables over $10K when returning to the States from PR? IF so, did they?
IF not, what's the problem?

Declare to whom? PR is a U.S. territory, so it is considered a domestic flight. There is an FDA agricultural inspection for baggage being transported from PR to the continental U.S., but that's it.

Actually, federal agents who abuse the Constitution are generally sued personally. :) ...as a certain TSM at FLL will find out in a few months. ;)

--Jon

BTW, what an interesting piece of case law! Just read the whole thing. Thanks for posting it!

--Jon

I c:)ncur!

You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to that case. Why is it taking a few months more to file against them? Or have they been served already and just waiting on a court date?