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.
I believe that they are telling the truth in this case. I watched all police agencies go from busting crooks to busting the money for the simple reason that they can. The asset forfeiture law sounded pretty good, at first, then it degenerated into a grab all. I didn’t play that game, and would not allow my men to play it either. I got into a pissing match with a narc sergeant over not seizing money from a fellow we all knew was a dope dealer, but on that particular night he didn’t have enough crap on him to pinch him for dealing so I wouldn’t let my men take his money.
It gets better. The narc sergeant was the hearing officer/judge if you will, if a person contested a seizure by us.
It’s turned into a big rip off. It pisses me off that I can’t travel around with a bunch of cash without having the possibility that the police can grab it. Then I have to prove it’s clean. Virtually every twenty dollar bill in circulation has dope on it. Some agencies have a base line of dope contamination of paper money. If your paper money is over that, it’s history.
Depends on the state and the circumstances. Typically, an officer is allowed to search the interior of the vehicle, including an unlocked glove box, incident to arrest. The state of Washington has stricter guidelines than the feds.
$23,700? Why, that just walking money.
Any transaction at a bank over $10,000 is reported to the feds, if two are more transactions total more that $10,000 it is reported to the feds and is considered suspicious. This is one of the charges the went after Rush with.
End the failed war on some drugs.
Asset for forfeiture laws are an outrage, because they place the burden on the property owner to prove innocence.
However, having heard enough of these stories over the years, as a practical matter it is idiotic to carry large amounts of cash on your person. What is not on your person, or not in your car, cannot be seized by a cop with too much time on his hands.
Work to change the laws, but until then, keep the cash in a bank or banks.
Apparently I get reported each month and probably have for years, big deal.
actually, it reads that they report if it’s an unusual transaction.
Scary isn't it?
I'm here to tell you that it's 10-15k for an engine replacement, right now. For some reason the shops doing the work want their jack before the truck leaves. You want to keep working, you shell out the cash.
I went down to help my pal pick up his truck last year after he had the engine replaced two counties over. He was carrying cash.
We DID get two Cummins hats out of the deal...
Citizens should act under the presumption of guilt and should prove their innocence. Brilliant. You are such a shallow thinking fool that I won’t even bother to argue with you. Your type has been around forever and let me just say that they were the enemy of our founding fathers. I really hope you are the victim of abuse at the hands of our government. I’m serious, I really hope you are horribly abused.
You're right. It is never in your best interest to consent to anything. In fact, it's not in your best interest to even talk to them. I avoid government drones and thieves like the plague, since most of the time, that's exactly what they are.
Finding drug dealers is dangerous. Stealing from the law-abiding is not.
Have y’all seen this?
good thing he wasn’t a diabetic.
>Any time you perform a transaction or series of transactions that exceed $10,000 in a fixed time frame, the bank networks flag the activity and notify the appropriate government agency.<
If bank personel suspect that you are involved in money laundering, they may turn you in for a lot less.
>What happens if you deny them permission to search?
He/She handcuff you, sticks you in the back seat of His/Hers cruiser and you wait unitil they bring in a “drug sniffing” or “explosive sniffing” animal of some sort.
Mabye after four of five hours you will be ‘releaed’.<
Since he is carrying interstate commercial goods, basically paid to deliver on schedual, they only have a certain time period that they can hold him without arresting him. Been too many years for me to recall the time period, 30 minutes maybe.
Pete should know.
It’s my understanding that they don’t need permission to search a commercial vehicle.
In other words, when there's a question of legality -- on one side, legality determined by our elected representatives in the legislature, and on the other, illegality declared by unelected judges who have no Constitutional power to make laws -- you side with...the judges.
What you are defending is judicial activism. The authorities and the courts are required to adhere to that idealistic letter of the law, as you deem it. When they depart from the letter of the law, by definition they're writing their own -- something that they have no Constitutional authority to do.
So exactly what do you say when you refuse? I would hope I wouldn’t consent to a search just on general principles, but I’ve never been in that situation and am not sure how to word my refusal so that it’s polite but assertive.
Comment
"You have proof for that statement .....?".
Has to be more to the story. He was heading north from El Paso...there is a high possibility that he crossed the US-Mexico border just before. There isn't a lot of north-south traffic transiting El Paso without crossing the border. It would be very much like the ACLU to leave out critical information.
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.