A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Linda Martin, a woman whose $40,200 life savings were seized by the FBI without criminal charges or a clear explanation. The ruling, issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, allows the federal government to retain the funds, highlighting ongoing concerns surrounding civil asset forfeiture practices. The case was brought to public attention by reporter Billy Binion, who stated in a recent tweet, "The FBI violated a warrant & took an innocent woman’s life savings. They never told her why—because they don’t have to."
The FBI seized Martin's funds as part of a broader operation targeting U.S. Private Vaults (USPV), a safe-deposit box business in Beverly Hills. While USPV itself was indicted, Martin, like many other customers, was never charged with a crime. Her lawsuit argued that the FBI's actions violated her due process rights by seizing assets without providing a specific justification for the forfeiture.
According to Bob Belden, an attorney with the Institute for Justice (I.J.), which represented Martin, the court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Belden stated, "The FBI took Linda's savings without clearly saying what she did wrong. That shouldn't happen in America, but taking on the entrenched federal civil forfeiture system is challenging." The Institute for Justice is a public interest law firm that frequently litigates against civil asset forfeiture.
Civil asset forfeiture permits law enforcement agencies to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not charged with or convicted of a crime. Critics argue that this practice creates perverse incentives for law enforcement and often disproportionately affects innocent individuals, as property owners face significant hurdles and costs to reclaim their assets. The dismissal of Martin's case underscores the difficulties individuals face in challenging such seizures.