A mom was saving up money for her daughter’s 15th birthday, planning an unforgettable coming-of-age celebration. Imagine the mother’s surprise when federal agents raided her home and seized the $15,000 in cash she was planning to use to pay for the party.
Miladis Salgado is a 54-year-old Colombian immigrant who splits her time working at an airport duty-free store and Subway sandwich shop. It was heartbreaking to lose the funds: “That was money I’d saved for my daughter’s quinceanera,” she said.
The agents raided Salgado’s suburban West Kendall home in May 2015 because they were acting on a bogus tip from a confidential narcotics informant, according to court records. But the lead agent on the case would later admit the cash was clean, federal records show.
Still, it took almost two years and a legal battle for the government to give Salgado back her cash, and according to her court filings, federal authorities refused to pay her attorney’s fees, which means she’s still out $5,000.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in and decide if the government has a responsibility to repay Salgado for all her costs. The Supreme Court has yet to agree to hear the case, but the court has taken the step of asking the U.S. Solicitor General to prepare a response, which, according to Salgado’s attorney Justin Pearson, is a good sign that the court may hear Salgado out.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
"Agents seized this mom’s $15,000 in a raid. Now the Supreme Court may weigh in to help her."
That's the title of this Sun-Sentinel piece on a cert petition that has a lot of appeal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"The case has a lot of appeal"
A pun worthy of another Miami legal blog.
Finally the Supremes might overturn Buckhannon which requires a court judgment in your favor before you can get an award of fees as a prevailing party, no matter that your lawsuit, or dispositive motion, caused the other side to cave (known as the catalyst theory). This happens in asset forfeiture cases often; they seize your stuff/money, refuse to return it even when you show the seizure was without merit, and only after they make you sue or file a claim and challenge the seizure in federal court, and the government must actually sustain their burden before an Article III court, they return your stuff/money. Time to even the playing field.
Is this really a challenge to Buckhannon? This would be great for EAJA fees in other cases against the government.
Post a Comment