Posted on 02/13/2024 7:52:04 AM PST by george76
Stephen Lara sued after the Nevada Highway Patrol took his life savings without charging him with any crime..
RENO, Nev.—On Thursday, the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada denied the state’s motion to dismiss a Marine veteran’s lawsuit challenging the state’s civil forfeiture laws, after his life savings were taken through the controversial process nearly three years ago. Thursday’s decision means Stephen Lara, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), can continue his legal challenge to the state’s forfeiture scheme, which allows police to take people’s property without showing that they committed a crime.
“The court’s ruling is a major first step toward justice for Stephen and all victims of unjust civil forfeiture laws,” said IJ Attorney Ben Field. “If the government wants to take your money or property, it should first have to prove you did something wrong. Nevada law enforcement should have to follow the Nevada Constitution.”
In February 2021, Stephen was pulled over on a Nevada highway on his way to visit his daughters. The officers who pulled him over never alleged he did anything wrong, and Stephen cooperated throughout the ordeal. However, using civil forfeiture, the officers were able to detain Stephen for more than an hour and take his life savings from him. He was left penniless on the side of the highway. The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) then used a controversial tactic known as the equitable sharing program to send Stephen’s money to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), with the expectation that the DEA would circumvent Nevada law to forfeit the money using more government-friendly federal law and then kick back the lion’s share for the NHP to use however it wanted.
Stephen eventually got his money back from the DEA after he teamed up with IJ in September 2021 to file a lawsuit which gained national media attention, but only after he had lost his life savings for the better part of a year. While his claims against the DEA are now moot, Thursday’s decision guarantees that all of his claims against the NHP will be heard on the merits.
Stephen’s claims include:
It violates due process for law enforcement to seize property for civil forfeiture when they stand to profit from those very forfeitures;
Cash is not a crime, and simply carrying your money in cash does not give law enforcement probable cause to seize it;
Civil forfeiture victims are entitled to prompt post-seizure hearings to force the government to prove it has a valid basis to hold the seized property; and
State law-enforcement officers can’t circumvent their own state’s forfeiture laws and the protections they give to property owners by using the federal equitable-sharing process instead.
“I’m very excited that my case can move forward, and I hope that one day we’ll have a final victory that will ensure no Nevadans are subjected to what I was subjected to that day,” said Stephen.
If state laws were violated, then the state police should be charged with armed robbery under color of law.
He is lucky he got his money back in a relatively short time frame.
How about charging them with highway robbery?
Cash is not a crime, and simply carrying your money in cash does not give law enforcement probable cause to seize it;
~~~
Yes it is.
People don’t understand how government looks at them.
They don’t care if you don’t have means or even motive, NOR EVEN IF YOU COMMITTED A CRIME... they still don’t want you to have the the opportunity.
Cash can’t be readily tracked.
This poses at least two major problems for the government. First of all, you may be buying and selling things without them knowing. This has been a big no-no for the IRS in particular for a very long time.
Secondly, you “could” be buying and selling things that they don’t know about, and In particular illicit goods, although they like knowing everything, not just the potential crimes.
And there-in lies the problem. The not knowing.
If you even just have the opportunity to make transactions off the books, that’s enough of a crime as far as they are concerned. It’s not good enough if you don’t make the transactions, or even if you report them when you do.
All this, of course, only counts for legal US citizens. If you are here illegally, you can do everything you want off the books. In fact, it almost seems to be encouraged.
The IJ they mention is the Institute for Justice. They do great work according to lawyer Steve Lehto.
I Met Everyone From the Institute for Justice!
by Steve Lehto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzpZdS0X8Os&ab_channel=SteveLehto
Another case taken on by the IJ.
Fed. Appeals Court Strikes Law That Forced Publishers to Give Free Books to the Gov’t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlF81a9rtXs&ab_channel=SteveLehto
Lesson to learn; answer only questions directly pertinent to the stop. When they start asking unrelated questions simply state that you decline to answer any further questions.
The officers who pulled him over never alleged he did anything wrong, and Stephen cooperated throughout the ordeal. However, using civil forfeiture, the officers were able to detain Stephen for more than an hour and take his life savings from him.
After answering the stop related questions ask if your are being arrested. When they say no, state that you would like to leave as you have pressing business elsewhere.
The police may not detain you without cause. The longer you are in contact with the police the greater chance that they can manufacture a reason to arrest you.
Good on this guy for continuing the fight. Too many would give up as long as they got their own money back. A correct verdict would protect the rest of us from such criminal acts.
> Stephen cooperated throughout the ordeal <
Good people want to cooperate with the police. And that often gets them into trouble.
Officer (smiling): Do you mind if we do a quick search of your car? You don’t have any bazookas in there, do you?
Driver: Well, okay.
I don’t know if that happened here. But in general a better answer is:
Driver: With all due respect officer, I do not consent to any searches.
Donald Trump, being himself a victim of so-called law enforcement, is maybe the right person to be President at this time.
While most people on this site know that I do not at all like Trump’s or Trump’s fans dismissing or even demeaning our veterans, I also don’t like “country club Republicans.” They have no first-hand knowledge of the challenges ordinary men and women face, either in terms of financial hardships, wondering how their medical bills will be covered, whether Social Security be there for them, or how they navigate the legal system if they or somebody in their family should become a target of law enforcement.
a true hero to pursue this to the bitter end even after he got his money back!
SCOTUS has ruled that you can not be detained longer than is reasonable to conduct the traffic stop for which you were pulled over for. You cannot be detained one second longer because of some suspicion that has no basis in reasonable, articulable suspicion that an actual crime has been committed or is about to be committed.
See Rodriguez v. United States
“Cash can’t be readily tracked.”
actually it can. it is just quite a bit more difficult than the new digital currency they want to impose.
every dollar you have has a unique identifying number and is scanned when going through banks or casinos.
> The police may not detain you without cause. <
Right you are. But that will not stop a bad officer in the least. And what can you do about it? Qualified immunity protects the officer from being charged with any crime.
You can sue, then wait years for a resolution.
And this is something cops don’t care to get. The cavalier behavior of a minority of police officers (and perhaps a large minority) is driving a huge wedge between decent citizens and the police. Not good for anyone.
Exactly what I was referring to.
But the cops are not going to tell you that
You can voluntarily stay and talk to the police as long as you like and most people will do just that because they don’t know that they are free to leave.
It would be helpful to have more details about the arrest.
I am thinking very few people in Nevada have been stripped of their life savings during a routine traffic stop?
Semper Fi, little cousin!
The entire idea of civil forfeiture is anathema to individual liberties. If someone was involved in a crime and made money from it, then ONLY IF YOU PROVE THAT should the money (or other assets) resulting from the crime(s) in question be subject to forfeiture. Until then, charging an (inanimate) asset with a crime is just another way to steal money from ordinary citizens without due process.
“How about charging them with highway robbery?”
Ditto this.
“After answering the stop related questions ask if your are being arrested. When they say no, state that you would like to leave as you have pressing business elsewhere.
The police may not detain you without cause. The longer you are in contact with the police the greater chance that they can manufacture a reason to arrest you.”
The police can say they are conducting an investigation and detain you while they proceed.
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.