Readers familiar with Reason
know a drug war
horror story or
two, but what happened to Craig Patty’s property and his peace
of mind, thanks to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is
still rather shocking. The Houston Chronicle

has the story which confirms the DEA’s ability to steal from
citizens and (so far in this case) get away with it.

Last October, Patty, the owner of a trucking company in Texas,
hired Lawrence Chapa as a driver. By November 21:

Chapa was shot dead in front of more than a dozen law
enforcement officers – all of them taken by surprise by hijackers
trying to steal the red Kenworth T600 truck and its load of
pot.

In the confusion of the attack in northwest Harris County,
compounded by officers in the operation not all knowing each other,
a Houston policeman shot and wounded a Harris County sheriff’s
deputy.

Not to mention, Patty’s truck was in ruins. It turned out Chapa
wasn’t answering to Patty, but to the DEA as an undercover
marijuana smuggler looking to bust cartels. In the few short weeks
that Chapa worked for the trucking company, he often drove where he
wasn’t supposed to, once taking a 1,000 mile detour.

The tragedy of a man’s death, particularly in service of a nasty
government organization (to say nothing of the worse cartels) is
one thing, but it seems pretty clear that if the DEA was using
Patty’s employee, and more importantly, his property, without the
man’s knowledge, they should pay for the estimated $133,532 in
damages and lost wages. Patty is asking the DEA for that amount,
plus an addition $1.3 million because he says his family now fears
for their lives due to the potential for the brush with cartels
meaning that dangerous men now know the name of Patty’s truck
company. 

So, what’s the difference between this and asset forfeiture, a
disturbing law enforcement trend that feeds off of and feeds into
the continued drug war by allowing police to keep the cars, money,
and property that they seize in drug crimes? (Radley Balko has a
good
introduction to the practice here. Suffice to say, it mostly
means that property can be “guilty” in a crime and then
seized…Except that government officials can take that property
before a conviction or even an arrest. And in order to get it back,
it’s often very costly for the plaintiff. It sure seems like this
practice was pioneered by people with either a terrific or a very
shoddy understanding of incentives.)

Well, as Mike Riggs reported earlier today, asset forfeiture has
increased in dramatically in the last several years under Obama’s

Department of Justice. Check it out, the numbers are
deeply disturbing.

Basically, if they can do that, why not ruin a truck with bullet
holes and blood and guts and then refuse to pay damages? The DEA
won’t confirm that Chapa was an undercover, but the
Chronicle claims that documents, prosecutor comments, and
off the record quotes confirm this to be the case.

Patty’s truck was insured, but the company won’t pay because
the truck was used in a law enforcement operation. Meanwhile,
Patty’s lawyer advised him to sue if the DEA doesn’t cough up. But
eight months have gone by and, wonders Patty:

“How am I — a small businessman, father of three, American Joe
from Texas — supposed to make a claim against a federal agency that
has conveniently shrouded itself behind a red, white and blue cloak
of confidentiality and secrecy?”

Reason on the DEA
and more on asset
forfeture