Police in Tennessee Legally Steal a Veteran’s Car Because of His Son’s Alleged Misdeeds
On Sept. 18, 2017, Lewis Cain, a disabled Vietnam veteran living in Nashville, Tennessee, woke to a flashlight shining in his eyes.
It was officers from the Mount Juliet Police Department, who had arrived at Cain’s home with an arrest warrant for his son. Cain himself had not been accused of any crime, and the police had no warrant to enter his house or remove property from his home.
Yet the officers later asked for the keys to Cain’s car. Confused but wishing to cooperate, he handed them over. When he objected, police told him that they were allowed to take his car.
Then they opened his garage door and drove away in his 2009 BMW.
The police allege that Cain’s son used Cain’s car to drive to a few locations where drug deals took place. However, this does not give them the right to take the car — Lewis Cain himself is an innocent property owner with no connection to any alleged criminal activity, and the police knew that the car belonged to Cain and not his son. Police clearly violated Cain’s constitutional rights when they took his car without a warrant or a hearing.
“I took an oath to defend our Constitution when I served in the military,” he says. “I have the highest respect for law enforcement, but the Fourth Amendment has to mean something. Police officers can’t just take people’s property for no reason.”
The seizure was part of a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agencies to seize an individual’s cash and property simply by asserting that they believe the property is connected to illegal activity. Oftentimes officers seize property without ever pursuing criminal charges against the property owner.
Law enforcement has a strong incentive to use — and even abuse — civil asset forfeiture because the proceeds from this practice go right back into their budgets. In Tennessee, the practice nets law enforcement agencies millions of dollars every year.
Unfortunately, Mr. Cain’s case is another example of the way Tennessee’s overly broad asset forfeiture laws invite, and even incentivize, abuse by law enforcement. While it is important for law enforcement to have adequate resources to protect public safety, these resources should not be obtained by picking innocent people’s pockets or taking their property.
Originally intended to target drug kingpins, the current civil asset forfeiture system actually harms legitimate property owners. While some asset forfeitures are validly connected to criminal activity, many others are not.
In fact, 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings between 1997 and 2013 , not criminal. The median forfeiture amount in Tennessee is $502 — hardly a “kingpin” level haul. And there’s no research indicating that asset forfeiture reduces crime. To the contrary, when law enforcement is focused on profit rather than public safety, they aren’t serving the public interest. This defies the stated purpose of asset forfeiture.
Meanwhile, the deck is unfairly stacked against the innocent property owners caught up in this broken system, who essentially bear the cost of going to court and the burden of proving their innocence.
In January, the ACLU of Tennessee with the Department of Safety, arguing that the seizure without a warrant violated Cain’s Fourth Amendment rights and that the officers had purposefully misrepresented Cain's son as the owner of the car in police reports, despite evidence that the son was not the owner. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case and return the vehicle to Cain.
But we also want to make sure that the Mount Juliet police know that they can’t do this again. This week we filed a federal on Cain’s behalf. The lawsuit asserts that the actions of the police violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects innocent property owners like Cain from unreasonable searches and seizures. Cain’s due process rights were also violated, as he was not given notice of a fair hearing prior to the seizure of his vehicle.
Outside the courtroom, we have also been working for five years with organizations from across the political spectrum — including the Beacon Center of Tennessee and Right on Crime — to demand reform of Tennessee’s civil asset forfeiture system.
Recently some incremental legislative progress has been made in our state. More data on the practice is now being collected and reported. And as of October 2018, property owners must be given reasonable notice of forfeiture warrant hearings and the burden will be on the seizing officer to prove that the property is subject to seizure — instead of property owners having to prove that their property is not associated with a crime.
But we still have a long way to go. Ultimately, we would like to see seizures tied to actual convictions and placement of seized assets into a general fund rather than law enforcement coffers. These reforms would disrupt the profit incentive and ensure that forfeiture is used as it was intended — to target criminal activity, not innocent civilians like Lewis Cain.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.