Posted on 08/25/2007 12:32:37 PM PDT by microgood
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A trucker has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking to get back nearly $24,000 seized by DEA agents earlier this month at a weigh station on U.S. 54 in New Mexico north of El Paso, Texas.
Anastasio Prieto of El Paso gave a state police officer at the weigh station permission to search the truck to see if it contained "needles or cash in excess of $10,000," according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the federal lawsuit Thursday.
Prieto told the officer he didn't have any needles but did have $23,700.
Officers took the money and turned it over to the DEA. DEA agents photographed and fingerprinted Prieto over his objections, then released him without charging him with anything.
Border Patrol agents searched his truck with drug-sniffing dogs, but found no evidence of illegal substances, the ACLU said.
The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Prieto's right to be free of unlawful search and seizure by taking his money without probable cause and by fingerprinting and photographing him.
"Mere possession of approximately $23,700 does not establish probable cause for a search or seizure," the lawsuit said.
It said Prieto pulled into the weigh station about 10:30 a.m. Aug. 8 and was let go about 4 p.m.
DEA agents told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he'd have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales.
They told him the process probably would take a year, the ACLU said.
The ACLU's New Mexico executive director, Peter Simonson, said Prieto needs his money now to pay bills and maintain his truck. The lawsuit said Prieto does not like banks and customarily carries his savings as cash.
"The government took Mr. Prieto's money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night," Simonson said. "In fact, being robbed might have been better. At least then the police would have treated him as the victim of a crime instead of as a perpetrator."
The DEA did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
Peter Olson, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, which oversees state police, said he could not comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit names DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy, DEA task force officer Gary T. Apodaca, DEA agent Joseph Montoya and three state police officers identified only as John or Jane Doe.
Absolutely ridiculous. Well, at least the WOD has really done a lot to reduce pre-WOD drug usage. (/sarcasm)
People like you are dangerous.
You are really a scarry person and I can’t believe you consider yourself a FReeper. Isn’t it a fairly fundamental principle that the government has to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Freeper you are not. Nanny state loser, you are.
I'll take the ACLU.
The DEA (with the powers they've been given) have done far more damage to this country and our freedoms than the ACLU could even begin to do.
And how exactly would this man go about proving to the government that his money was earned “legitimately”?
BTW, have you ever heard of anyone smuggling corn across the border? How about drive by shootings by watermelon farmers? Interesting that people are willing to do these things with similar agricultural products like marijuana. Wonder what it is that creates such a huge profit margin?
... how on Earth can you condone those actions and still pretend to enjoy freedom?...
Darn good question.
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? This process takes the EXACT opposite stance - you are guilty unless you can prove that you are not...
Guess he would have really been screwed had he been a Diabetic
That's good.
What side would you take if it was the ACLU vs the BATF? I know I would be torn, although the ACLU would never side against the ATF.
“If you just lie, or deny consent to the search, then they can charge you with a felony”
You most certainly can deny consent to search, and that
is not a crime. The police have to show probable cause
for a seach w/o consent at trial, or face having the case
thrown out.
Too bad the DEA can’t find drug dealers.
You’re right knee-jerk. We don’t need any nanny state searching people just because they’re driving around with tens of thousands with no explanation for it. The guy’s probably just prepared for an engine replacement like someone suggested. The flying imams were probably just exercising their right to prayer and political dissent, and that centrifuge in my backyard is for my own power consumption.
Being free doesn’t mean being stupid. Searching someone fitting the profile of someone with such a high criminal probability is essential to police work. That’s universally expected, has always been legal, but unfortunately leads borderline schizophrenics with rage problems into believing a police state is just around the corner. Good luck with that…
Oddly enough, it it called the "Bank Secrecy Act".
Thank you, whomever promulgated the "war on (some) drugs" and the "war on terror".
I sincerely hope you receive the same treatment you advocate for others.
You deserve to have your possessions taken from you because you *might* fit a profile or because the government agents feel a little froggy that day.
You still haven’t explained why you think that anyone owes any explanation for having cash. Sounds like you have a severe case of petty jealousy because you don’t seem to believe that there are law abiding people who can muster tens of thousands of cash.
Why should anyone have to explain having cash???
I didn't see any reference to a border crossing, and you are right. If it might be drug money or G-string money or tobacco money, or trans-fat money, or SUV money, it must be confiscated.
Uhmmm, and why would that be?
That is also your bad, and none of your or the government's business.
It is certainly refreshing to see someone of your mindset admit this.
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.