Jerry Johnson has received his money back more than 2.5 years after Phoenix police took $39,500 in cash from him despite never filing a criminal complaint against him. Johnson, the proprietor of a shipping business, had flown from Charlotte, North Carolina, in August 2020 to buy a third semi-truck to grow his little company. After discovering a truck he sought at an auction in Phoenix, Johnson flew to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport with a sizable amount of money.
Johnson admitted that he chose to travel with cash because he wanted to avoid paying fees for withdrawing money from a location other than his regular bank and because he had read articles claiming that doing so was perfectly legal.
But, before he could recover his checked bags and proceed to his hotel, Phoenix police officers approached him and questioned him about the purpose of the enormous sum of cash he had brought with him. Johnson stated that he planned to buy a truck for his firm.
An officer eventually accused Johnson of criminal activity and forced him to sign a waiver form or go to jail.
Johnson previously told The Republic that he didn’t understand what he was signing at the time, but that it turned out to be a disclaimer document confirming that the money he took with him wasn’t his. Johnson was released after signing the paperwork, but police held his money until last weekend.
Arduous legal battle
Johnson went through a slew of legal challenges, submitting bank records and tax returns to prove that the money was his and not part of a criminal scheme. Yet, the court determined that the evidence was still insufficient.
He later contacted the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based libertarian charity that has written about and battled civil-forfeiture cases. Its lawyers analyzed his case and agreed to file an appeal with the lower court on his behalf.
In November 2021, three Arizona Court of Appeals judges heard Johnson’s case and frequently challenged the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office’s reasons for seizing the money from Johnson.
“I’m sorry if it seems harsh that the state should actually have to come forward with evidence before it takes people’s money away at the airport,” the Honorable Peter Swann said.
In May 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, finding that Johnson could dispute the forfeiture until prosecutors filed to drop the case in 2023. Johnson was glad to receive his money back, but he was irritated that the cops had taken it in the first place.
“It’s a blessing to finally have my savings back so that I can invest it in my business,” said Johnson said. “That the government could take my money, never charge me with a crime but hold onto my savings for so long is outrageous. It created a tremendous financial burden for me and my family, and there were a lot of business opportunities I’d missed out on because that money was just sitting in a government account.”
‘Jerry must yet be made whole’
According to Dan Alban, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, the government owed Johnson more than the money it had seized.
“We’re glad that the money has been returned, but Jerry still needs to be made whole,” Alban said in a statement.
Johnson earned less than 0.8% in accumulated interest, according to the Institute for Justice, while the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office refused to pay his attorney’s expenses.
“This would leave Jerry uncompensated for the years his money was locked away and for what he paid out-of-pocket to an attorney before IJ took on his case,” the non-profit said. “The case will continue as IJ has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and opposes the state’s motion.”
Civil forfeiture has received harsh criticism over the years since it has frequently permitted police enforcement to remove assets such as money and property without the necessity to charge the owners with a crime, let alone gain a conviction.
Since then, the Arizona Legislature has passed a civil forfeiture reform measure that prohibits law enforcement from coercing people into signing such waivers and makes it much more difficult for the government to hold confiscated assets in the absence of a criminal conviction.
Many in favor of reform contended that at the time, civil forfeiture rules rendered recovering seized assets financially impractical since the attorney’s costs required to file a legal claim frequently equaled the monetary value of the item.