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.
It is really situational, and you have to read the cop carefully. Most of the sizing up takes place during the initial dialog of why you were stopped. Be polite, but not too deferential. Short sentences work best. Normally the request to search will not come until the main business is done. This is almost always true if you were stopped because they think there is something hinkey but are not sure what and the main goal of the stop is a search (think I-95 north)
Many of my tactics are based on being on a motorcycle. For example when possible I stop along the street or highway in a place where I can not put the bike on the side stand and the cop has to approach me from the left side. Never had a cop figure that out at the time. It means that they have to be near traffic to talk to me and allow me to move elsewhere so before they can look at anything. They are trained not to let you drive off until they are done with you, and yet know its not safe to look in even the tank bag with me on the bike. I also get all my docs out of the glove box (we have them on bikes too) and relock it before they come up. Locked glove boxes are the norm on a bike and an attention getter in a car. I also take off my gloves, and flip open/remove my helmet. That gives them no excuse or opportunity to look anywhere except in the tank bag (immediate reach/covered by Terry) and nothing of any possible interest is in plain sight (another key issue)
For the rest of the deny process checkout:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb%20bust%20card7_04.pdf
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article14779.html
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_consent1.shtml
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/193623
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html
of all of the above http://www.flexyourrights.org/ is the best.
Clearly none of the above will dissuade a cop if they think I am an axe murder suspect. . But if its general curiosity, its enough for them to go find some other victim. I also ride clean. No loud pipes, nothing that looks like gang color etc. I look like what I am, an older motorcyclist on well used but well maintained bike who rides in full gear. Nothing that fits any profile. I’m similar in my car.
Another point. I always record all interaction. Non I-pod MP3 players often have a microphone and recording capability. Turn it on when you are approached. It may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but it could be the tipping point in terms of who said what later if needed. Its never been found.
Some could take this as an anti-cop rant. Its not. I stay on the right side of the law, even when its bad law. However, I hate LEOs who treat all of us like criminals without regards to our rights. I will mildly protest but not put up a fight in real time, but when an LEO does step out of line, I make sure he feels it later via his superiors, politicians, and the media.
You choosing the ACLU over the DEA reveal more about you than the DEA.
The article is from the Houston Chronicle, not an ACLU Press Release.
From the facts presented in the article, even if he had been in Mexico, there was no evidence of drugs, illegals, or other crimes.
So at this point you are saying that if he was busted he must have done something wrong, we just don’t know what it is yet.
That is a far cry from innocent until proven guilty.
You still believe in that, right?
What are you gonna do if it is ACLU vs ATF?
I can’t think of anything that the ATF does that is positive and they certainly have more than their share of villainous activities on their resume.
Don't know 'bout that, but being in a commercial vehicle he had no expectation of privacy and they can check him for anything regarding FMCSA rule compliance at the weigh station so one way or another they'd have gotten into the truck...
there's a rest of the story here somewhere
That’s pretty cowardly of you, standing on the shoulders of a civilization that “shallow thinking fools” built, venting your anger management problems at them.
Profiling, questioning and then searching for reasonable cause is essential to the police work that maintains the civilization that allows you to behave like a self righteous zealot.
Contrary to your imagination, the Founding Fathers thrived in communities that snooped through each others business with all the social control of any small or rural community today. But as you scream police state now, you can run businesses, organize communities, publish to millions, promote political campaigns and plow through small fortunes with a degree of privacy from anyone who gives a damn that the founding fathers couldn’t imagine. And if you ever recover from you psychotic delusion that you’re living in a fascist state, you’ll notice that this is the most tolerant, diverse and non-judgmental society than has ever existed, looking the other way a behaviors that would have gotten anyone run out of town or worse in the “free” days of the Founding Fathers.
But the advancements in technology, transportation, communication and philosophy that make all that possible are a double edged sword. They also enable the rapid empowerment of organized crime, predatory drug cartels, child pornography subcultures, stolen goods smuggling and terrorism. So the police oversight you referrer to as “big brother” (realty just a nat on the money that used to reside on citizens’ backs) is authorized to tap our phones and emails for key phrases, analyze large financial transactions, mine electronic records for suspicious behavior patterns and yes, search vehicles carrying over $10k that can’t explanation why.
Oh, what a “miserable, fascist, nanny state looser” I (and most of America) are for supporting that… I’ve corrected my mistake in believing that this trucker crossed the border with the cash, recognizing that he therefore should not have to demonstrate some legal reason for having the money in order to keep it. But because the odds probably are that it was gained illegally, even transporting it domestically without explanation (like taking it to pay for a friends new engine) is probable cause for searching his vehicle. That’s not an unconstitutional or onerous burden on citizens.
Now, I’ve explained this well enough for any reasonable person to understand, but opinions will of course vary. I’m fine with varying opinions, but when a few extremists gather in a little anonymous online community, attitudes rather than reason tends to dominate. So feel free to continue to mob together behind your anonymous signatures, personal firewalls and paranoia and flame me with your best libertarian extremism. I won’t read it so good luck …
We’re laughing, but not with you.
Funny thing is that those who know me know that I don’t need to be anonymous to say what I say.
Bottom line is that you’re still ok with government agents stealing money from someone accused of no crime and not even arrested and yet you find congruency with this attitude and freedom.
I didn’t bother reading what you wrote. You seem to think you are an expert on our founding fathers thoughts and seem to think that those of us who disagree with you are paranoid. I am a grown man and should be able to live my life as I want without you, or an agent of yours interfering with me unless there is evidence that I am interfering with your rights.
I suspect you are a young person. Maybe not in biological terms, but certainly in your brain.
Actually, I used to post under my real name until the Clinton government made it dangerous to do so...
Sorry, but carrying large amounts of cash does not strike as an valid excuse for seizure. Okay, it can arouse suspicion in certain circumstances, such as crossing a border. An officer could legitimately, after finding cash, search for evidence of a given crime. If he finds any, he could then arrest and charge the suspect. But carrying cash by itself is not, never, under no circumstances whatever, a valid excuse for seizure.
I'm not defending this practice, but just pointing out that's the way it is. In fact, law students are taught cases, not so much the letter of the law.
By the same token, you will hear every so often from people who believe, for example, that from their own interpretation of the Constitution, the income tax is illegal. What's important is not how Joe Blow interprets the Constitution, but how the courts, Supreme and otherwise, interpret it.
I'm no fan of the ACLU either, but I would much rather be "under" the ACLU than the DEA. The ACLU's view of the law would lead to us being crime victims to a much greater extent than we are now, but so long as we still get to exercise our Second Amendment rights, I would deem that a worthy tradeoff.
As I write, a Sex Offender Notification that arrived in yesterday's mail sits on top of the stack. Yavapai County informs us that a known pedophile has moved into our complex. I'll have to call Game and Fish on Monday to apply for a tag.
But what the Founders fundamentally believed in was due process. Even if Salem accused your wife as being a witch, there was a trial of sorts, at which witnesses would be called an evidence examined. Any seizure of property was the result of a court judgment. I'm not aware of any founding father who at an time supported allowing police officers to seize and keep property without due process.
Actually, the English vice-admiralty courts were a primary cause of the American Revolution. Pretty much the same thing as is going on here - the "authorities" would seize merchant ships from the colonials for "smuggling", and the cases would be brought before a judge (no jury) who would receive a goodly portion of the seizure if he found the merchant "guilty" of smuggling.
No way would I ever want to be under the ACLU. They are just too perverted, to full of hate for anything this country stands for.
Certainly. I've only had transfers like that when I was buying/selling real estate. The point of the monitoring is to look for laundering of drug money and attempts to finance criminal activities. There are probably hundreds of triggers daily that amount to nothing.
do you think it's any safer now?
Aside from the whole seizure business being unconstitutional, I can understand an owner operator carrying around a large amount of cash. Just to fuel up costs the better part of a grand, and breakdowns can be very expen$ive, 20 grand might cover a major engine failure. We get truckers from all over North America in our shop and when they have large repair bills we take a risk accepting any form of payment other than cash. Most of our customers are in our area and we know them, but these truckers we don’t know from Adam.
And, pray tell, what crime is that?
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.