A federal program in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents unconstitutionally demanded to search travelers’ luggage, without any probable cause a crime had been committed, has been suspended after the scheme was caught on video.
It is the Institute for Justice, which is fighting on behalf of victims of the program, that confirmed the government’s abrupt flip-flop.
The institute confirmed, “Today, the Department of Justice suspended the Drug Enforcement Administration’s controversial practice of having agents intercept travelers, interrogate them, and insist on searching their bags in what the agency calls ‘consensual encounters.'”
The encounters actually are anything but consensual, as the video reveals one agent insisting that he is “the government” and can confiscate a traveler’s backpack and take it away – to some unknown location – for a search.
The victim in this case explained on video that he was very concerned that the agent would, in fact, take the backpack, and then plant evidence in it.
The institute said the suspension “comes on the heels of an Office of the Inspector General report, also issued today, that criticizes the practice and refers to shocking footage of one traveler’s experience, which the Institute for Justice (IJ) released on YouTube in July.”
“Today’s OIG report confirms what we’ve been saying for years about predatory DEA practices at airports, and the allegations in our nationwide class-action lawsuit against DEA over these abuses,” said IJ lawyer Dan Alban.
“We welcome DOJ’s suspension of this program as a first step, but policy directives can be changed at any time, under this or future administrations. We call on Congress to pass the FAIR Act to permanently reform federal civil forfeiture laws to end the profit incentive, close the equitable sharing loophole, and to guarantee every property owner receives their day in court by ending so-called administrative forfeitures.”
The institute said it currently is suing the DEA and the Transportation Security Administration over the airport seizure and confiscation programs they operate.
The case is on behalf of several travelers and a class of people who have had their property seized, and it currently is in the discovery phase gathering evidence.
The IG report cited the evidence that the DEA was refusing to comply with even its own policies on consensual encounters at airports.
That failure, the IG confirmed, was creating “potentially significant operational and legal risks.”
Among the failings was that the DEA operatives were refusing to complete required documentation about their actions, and had failed to obtain the proper training.
The OG continued with criticism of DEA’s “absence of critical controls, such as adequate policies, guidance, training, and data collection,” because that creates “substantial risks” that officers “will conduct these activities improperly, impose unwarranted burdens on, and violate the legal rights of innocent travelers.”
The IG noted that when the report was given to a deputy attorney general, a directive was issued to the DEA to halt its practices.
Further, the IG noted that concerns about complaints about such activities date back decades.
