SPRINGFIELD — After misconduct in state drug labs in Amherst and Boston, more than 30,000 cases tainted by the scandals were dismissed in 2017 and 2018.
Still ongoing, though, is a federal class action lawsuit trying to get the automatic return of property from those exonerees taken through civil asset forfeiture, a process that allows police to seize property if they suspect it’s connected to a crime.
A federal appeals court dismissed the class action lawsuit in January, and now the plaintiffs are pursuing a review request with the Supreme Court.
Last month, the plaintiffs submitted a request to the high court to extend the deadline for filing a formal petition for the court to review the case, saying they needed more time to research and prepare. That request was granted, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys now have until late June to file their petition.
In the plaintiff’s request to the Supreme Court, they write that, despite the “unprecedented government malfeasance” behind the state’s drug lab scandals and dismissal of tens of thousands of cases as a result, the lawsuit defendants say that “they can nevertheless keep millions of dollars in cash and property (cars, cellphones, etc.) that were taken from the innocent victims of those scandals — in many cases, literally from their pockets — and continue to be unlawfully withheld today.”
The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any case. Of the more than 7,000 petitions for review that the court receives each year, it accepts about 100 to 150.
Sonja Farak was a chemist at the state’s drug testing lab in Amherst. She was arrested in 2013 and admitted that she used the drugs she tested for years. Annie Dookhan, a chemist at a similar lab in Boston, served time for crimes related to falsifying test results.
Former state chemist Annie Dookhan sits during a hearing Nov. 22, 2013, in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston, where she entered a guilty plea on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and tampering with evidence. Dookhan, who admitted faking test results in criminal cases, was sentenced to three to five years in prison, followed by two years’ probation. (David L. Ryan / The Boston Globe, Pool, File)
Because of the misconduct, the state’s highest court vacated tens of thousands of cases. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court said those whose cases were thrown out could get automatic refunds for most of the money paid related to the criminal cases, like court fees, but not for property taken through civil asset forfeiture.
After law enforcement takes property it believes is connected to a crime, prosecutors file a separate civil case to keep the funds. If taken through the civil court, the funds are then split between the county district attorneys’ offices and local law enforcement. The Springfield Republican and New England Public Media co-published a series last year about the civil asset forfeiture practice.
While the state’s highest court ruled against automatic forfeiture returns in the vacated cases, it said each person could file individual motions to attempt to get their property back.
In response, Boston attorneys William Fick, Daniel Marx and Northampton attorney Luke Ryan filed a class action lawsuit 2018 in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The suit’s defendants include the commonwealth, the attorney general, the governor and all the state’s district attorneys, including Hampden County’s Anthony Gulluni.
Jennifer Cotto, a Ludlow woman, is a lead plaintiff. In 2008, she was arrested by Springfield police on a drug charge, and police seized the $518 she had with her, according to the lawsuit complaint. A decade later, the case was thrown out because it had been tainted by the drug lab scandal.
Others from Western Massachusetts are named in the complaint. Travis Moran, of Springfield, had $4,528 and his 1994 Honda Accord taken in 2006, and Todd Moton, of Adams, had $878 taken from him when he was arrested in 2009. Like Cotto, their case dispositions were dismissed because of the drug testing lab scandal.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court dismissed the case because of the 11th Amendment, which prohibits individuals suing a state in federal court, Judge Julie Rikelman wrote in the Jan. 21 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
“Like the SJC, we acknowledge the tremendous harm caused by Farak and Dookhan’s egregious misconduct. But the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from providing the relief plaintiffs seek here,” it reads.
“I’m happy that the federal courts now have sided with us,” Gulluni said of the decision.
Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni, center, stands at a press conference in early May in Springfield. (Douglas Hook / The Republican, File)Douglas Hook
“These are efforts funded by George Soros and the ACLU, so they’re just going to keep spending money until there’s nowhere to spend it,” he told The Republican on Wednesday. “So they’re going to appeal to the Supreme Court. It won’t get accepted. It won’t go anywhere.”
When asked why he thought they were involved, Gulluni said: “Money. It’s called money.”
Gulluni was unavailable Thursday for additional explanation.
Soros is a billionaire left-leaning philanthropist, and The Republican has no evidence Soros is involved in the case.
Hungarian-born U.S. investor and philanthropist George Soros answers to questions after delivering a speech on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos on May 24, 2022. (FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images, File)AFP via Getty Images
There are no attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union listed on the case in any of the dockets, as well. The ACLU of Massachusetts was involved in a separate, prior litigation that resulted in overturning convictions tainted by the drug lab scandals. The ACLU of Massachusetts said Friday that it was not involved in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys on the current civil asset forfeiture case are from two private firms, Fick & Marx LLP and Strehorn, Ryan & Hoose.
In the plaintiff’s recent filing with the Supreme Court, they say the withholding of the forfeited funds violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail, fines and punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of due process. Their formal petition for court review is due June 20.
Fick and Marx did not immediately reply to a request for comment, and Ryan was not immediately available for comment on Thursday. A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.
This story has been updated to include a response from the ACLU of Massachusetts.
