Posted on 02/06/2014 10:34:43 AM PST by Altariel
WINNEMUCCA, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) -- Imagine getting pulled over for a traffic stop, and instead of getting a ticket, the officer takes your money. All of it.
It happened to one man recently, who was driving on Interstate 80 through Northern Nevada. Now, he is fighting back.
It's a case that focuses on our rights: Can law enforcement take your money or property, even if you are not charged with a crime?
The driver was Tan Nguyen of California. He has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and District Attorney. His attorney, John Ohlson said, "The basis of the stop was he was going 78 in a 75. The stop ended in a search, and the deputy took $50,000 from my client that belonged to him."
Nguyen was not arrested. He was not charged with any crime. But Humboldt County Sergeant Lee Dove decided to confiscate a bundle of cash Nguyen happened to be carrying: $50,000 worth. Sergeant Dove even posed for a photo after seizing the cash.
In this incident report, Sergeant Dove observed that Nguyen seemed "nervous", was "argumentative", and that the car smelled of marijuana. No drugs were found during the stop.
Nguyen was not cited for doing anything illegal, although Sergeant Dove wrote in his report, "I felt he was not part of the legal traveling public," which he cited as justification for taking Nguyen's money.
When asked why Nguyen had so much cash, Ohlson responded, "I think it doesn't matter. I think the point is as long as there is U.S. currency in circulation, and we're allowed to have it, you can carry it."
This case seems to raise a lot of questions about all of our rights as citizens. The Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore was asked if he had any concerns about how the money was seized during this stop.
"At this point, I can't comment, since its an active litigation," Kilgore said.
But Humboldt County Assistant District Attorney Kevin Pasquale responded by saying, "If we think the money was obtained illegally, we have a right to seize it."
Does law enforcement have that kind of power? That's the question. This case is now headed to federal court, where a judge will decide whether authorities had a right to take Nguyen's money.
"You can have $50 and decide to buy drugs with it," Ohlson concluded. "But until you by the drugs, there's no crime."
Ohlson says he has heard of several other similar cases, where people had their money seized even though they were not charged with a crime. So far, only one known lawsuit has been filed.
Based on what though? My house is worth more than 10k, so they can take that too? At what point does the constitution allow for illegal search and seizure based on value?
No, I meant $5,000. All $500 of his money will be returned. Cops are corrupt. It’s been an on-going joke in posts here.
I’m sure the guy will be happy when his $500 is finally returned to him.
The odds are this guy was involved in the drug trade and should be rotting in Levenworth for the next 50 years. My guess is the officers had inside or NSA information before they ever stopped him.
But constitutional rights and due process of law should apply. Because if they can seize property from a drug user without court oversight or due process, then they can seize it from you and me too.
The odds are this guy was involved in the drug trade and should be rotting in Levenworth for the next 50 years. My guess is the officers had inside or NSA information before they ever stopped him.
But constitutional rights and due process of law should apply. Because if they can seize property from a drug user without court oversight or due process, then they can seize it from you and me too.
It’s not what you think it’s what you can prove!
Put the fed back in the Constitutional box.
The federal war on drugs has gutted the 4th amendment.
/johnny
Good thing Mr Nguyen didn’t have a dog with him - it would have been shot, in all likelihood.
"Then we'll have to get a warrant. That will take some number of hours, because [plausible, impossible-to-disprove reason goes here], and you'll have to stay here the whole time..."
I'm glad that you grudgingly admit that the Constitution should apply.
Congress has no Constitutional mandate to 'contain stupid'.
/johnny
The odds are that the officers involved likely have committed more crimes than their victim.
No crime was committed, therefore, the money was not theirs to take.
Police today are taking a page out of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s playbook.
Bigger governemnt is justified when it’s ‘our’ federal government.
We can double the size of the IRS/NSA when we have a republican Congress and president.
What could possibly go wrong?
Give them some credit. They didn’t just think it, they “felt it” too. Air tight case, if you think and feel something’s illegal, it must be. What more proof do you need? Can’t believe they didn’t arrest the guy on the spot. /s
These violations of the Constitution have to stop,and it’s up to the courts to stop them hard.
Which would work it the judges and the court system weren’t corrupt too. If every one involved in the process is tainted you have no rule of law anymore.
Louisiana cops on I-10 have a history of stopping out-of-state cars and seizing money, cars. No charges are ever filed, and you have to go to court to fight to get your money back. 60 Minutes did a story about this but it still takes place.
This is why cops oppose ending the so-called “War On Drugs”. It is a money making scheme.
These days, we have one law for the Elites and the Knights of the Realm, one law for the Mundanes.
“Sorry, so there’s “a smell”, cop says it was marijuana....not buying it. If there’s no arrest this is theft plain and simple.”
You and I both know it is, but under the law, it’s not. The smell triggers the search, whether there’s an actual smell or not at the time of the stop, we don’t know, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t.
But the reason that will be given by the police will be that they smelled marijuana and that triggers the search.
Now for the sake of argument, say the item seized wasn’t cash but jewelry. Say the guy had a bag of high end jewelry in his car and couldn’t in some way provide proof of ownership. Would the police be remiss in seizing the jewelry because it may be stolen?
This is how the thinking goes. I may not agree with it, but that’s how it goes.
Today, most law enforcement is about revenue generation first priority.
Solving crime, serving the public, setting things right.......all incidentals in the line of duty.
Just say no. Make them get a warrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.