This is the Cato Daily podcast for Tuesday, November 26, 2024. I'm Keel Brown. Civil forfeiture

continues to be a favorite procedure for the federal government, and the government's largely

avoided accountability for wholesale thefts from Americans. In a case where the feds seized the

contents of hundreds of safe

deposit boxes, a new Cato brief argues the D.C. Circuit Court should make clear that victims of

civil forfeiture have a due process right to a straightforward and timely procedure to get their

property back. I spoke with Cato's Tommy Berry. We've heard about this case a number of times,

and it really just is,

it's galling to hear just the initial facts of this particular raid

in the case that became FBI v. Martin. Can you detail just the initial

facts of the case? Yeah, it's absolutely shocking. So this involved a safe deposit, a private

company that essentially had safes, anyone could rent out and use for valuables. And the FBI,

without any particular explanation of what their justification was,

they raided the company, and they took possession of every safe that contained $5,000 or more

of valuables. So dozens of people had their property seized with really no explanation.

One of them being Linda Martin, the plaintiff in this case,

who had over $42,000 in a safe that she was saving up to buy a home with. And suddenly,

her life plans are put on hold because she loses access to this cash potentially forever.

So where are we now? So fortunately, she challenged the FBI's procedures after two years of a runaround and extremely confusing forms, including one that essentially tricked her into waiving her rights to any kind of judicial process.

She brought a class action lawsuit against the FBI, alleging due process violations. And as it's

often the case, the government attempted to moot the case so that it wouldn't lose and set a

precedent, good for people and bad for the government. They gave her money back as soon as it

...