EDITORIAL: Flouting the Constitution

Have you been stopped and had your bags searched at the airport or train station recently? Well, you may have been stopped at random. But according to a recent audit from the Office of the Inspector General, there’s also a decent chance you were flagged by a transportation or security employee who was secretly paid by the feds to finger potential smugglers.

During a November congressional hearing, Department of Justice officials testified that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s secretive Confidential Source Program has for years paid millions of dollars to confidential informants in exchange for information about travelers who may be transporting drugs or large sums of cash.

In other words, the government was searching travelers based on tips from paid informants rather than any evidence of wrongdoing.

Both Inspector General Michael Horowitz and DEA spokesman Melvin Patterson admitted the exploitative civil forfeiture policies that enabled the DEA’s behavior raise some rather serious “Fourth Amendment issues.” Mr. Horowitz even went so far as to affirm concerns that “the DEA’s policies are warping priorities by prioritizing asset forfeiture rather than the seizure of drugs.”

Among the audit’s findings, which were previously reported in Forbes, was the DEA’s $237 million payment to informants in order to seize property from people’s luggage and mail as “evidence” of unsubstantiated wrongdoing. Not only did these seizures allow the agency to evade constitutional protections, but the sources who facilitated civil forfeitures — sources who included staff at airlines, Amtrak, parcel services and even the Transportation Safety Administration — could expect to receive kickbacks “of up to $500,000 or 25 percent” of each seizure.

DOJ investigators determined these transactions “could have implications relating to compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The DEA admits that it didn’t bother to track the effectiveness of this questionable campaign, nor did it keep records of the money spent carrying it out.

Not surprisingly, as the Institute for Justice surmises, the program’s embarrassing failures were likely a key factor in former DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart’s year-long stonewalling of the IG’s efforts to hold the agency accountable. Only when Mr. Leonhart was replaced did the DEA finally comply with the IG’s request for information.

The DEA says it is currently reviewing its use of “limited use” informants. But that announcement comes a little too late. Congress must act to ensure nothing like this ever happens again.