17 ms·

Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a veterans life savings

349 points by tomohawk 5y ago

beezle 5y ago
So if I win big at a Nevada casino should I immediately buy a Rolex or two?
- pbourke 5y ago
  No you should go to a bank.
- a3n 5y ago
  Any property can be seized. Put it in a financial institution, and dispose of it as you see fit at your destination.
- salawat 5y ago
  If you put it in the bank, as others suggest, you're opting into financial surveillance as half of KYC/AML is focused around turning the financial services industry into a surveillance for law enforcement. The real problem is that law enforcement has a fairly good chance of getting a big chunk of money, and your odds of litigating successfully without those funds are low. That's the fundamental problem. Fix legalized theft by law enforcement. The rest will sort itself out.
morpheos137 5y ago
Civil forfeiture is wrong but the story described here is bizarre. The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? It may not be a crime but it is really stupid. What if he was in a wreck? Something does not add up here. Free checking and savings accounts exist and they are FDIC insured. There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.
- cwwc 5y ago
  this does seem odd, i agree.
- aqme28 5y ago
  How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.
  - casion 5y ago
    It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy. If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.
        aqme28 5y ago
        > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I was responding to this comment: > Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
        morpheos137 5y ago
        I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days. What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one." The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
- geofft 5y ago
  I would imagine that a vet has plenty of reasons not to trust the government.
  - chenmike 5y ago
    Agreed but then the bizarre part was consenting to a search of his vehicle.
    - polotics 5y ago
      I would not necessarily be aware of any right to not consent to a search.
      - shadowprofile76 5y ago
        The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
        geofft 5y ago
        Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count. The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
- superbatfish 5y ago
  Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel. The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them. I can’t think of a better example than this case. [1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-too-many-americans-do-it.html https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...
  - salawat 5y ago
    >Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution. Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business. This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.
- 5555624 5y ago
  According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
- tyingq 5y ago
  >The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances. Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.
- CPLX 5y ago
  I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.
- josefx 5y ago
  > and they are FDIC insured. So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.
broahmed 5y ago
Love IJ. They do some great work. One of my favorite cases: https://youtu.be/HujPlUyTXRY https://youtu.be/HujPlUyTXRY
polotics 5y ago
One of the many reasons why I am always quite reserved when visiting the US.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  This is a terrible thing and laws need to be changed, but it’s an absolute aberration.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Define “aberration”? As of 2015, police via civil forfeiture stole more than burglars. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
    - adventured 5y ago
      An estimated $68.8 billion over 20 years approximately, between state and federal authorities. The Institute for Justice has published a couple of their Policing for Profit profiles (that attempts to keep track of and update on civil asset forfeiture figures and progress/regression), with the most recent in 2020. California is averaging $25m per year the past 17 years; Illinois is averaging $33m per year; Texas is averaging $18m per year; Florida is averaging $49m per year. Some of the best states are Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut and Missouri. Here's an infographic by the Institute for Justice for 2018, sizing the states by their civil asset forfeiture thefts (note, the color of the box doesn't coordinate to the scale of theft, that coordinates to state law grades): https://i.imgur.com/sqg4FiC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/sqg4FiC.jpg It's too bad these scumbags aren't targeting Michael Dell ($50b), Jim Walton ($65b) or MacKenzie Scott ($61b) with civil asset forfeiture. Sorry MacKenzie, that Amazon stock no longer belongs to you, it has been 'impounded' by the Washington State Police. It's being held as, uhm, evidence that you may have had a role in the operation of a massive counterfeit goods ring. Congress or the Supreme Court might finally get around to stopping the practice (or maybe they'd just place a ceiling on how much you can steal from one person).
5555624 5y ago
Another article, including a video of the beginning of the encounter, as well as Lara asking foe the cop's information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
jacksonkmarley 5y ago
> The stop was a pretext to ask Stephen about his trip, and “a bunch of silly questions,” like “[are there] any large amounts of United States currency in the vehicle.” Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. If the DEA really didn't comply with it's legal obligations about returning the money/explaining though, I guess the guy has a pretty strong case to get it all back plus a bit extra. Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever. Principle? I have a lot of questions about this story.
- richk449 5y ago
  > Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. … or he asks everyone that he pulls over that question.
  - jacksonkmarley 5y ago
    Seemed weirdly specific to me, but I guess in certain areas with lots of drug sales or whatever it could be more generally applicable.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      In jurisdictions that make heavy use of civil forfeiture, it’s a standard question. It’s unfortunately common in some small towns and low population counties as it’s a large chunk of their funding.
      - jacksonkmarley 5y ago
        That certainly puts a different light on how I was looking at the topic.
    - 5y ago
jrexilius 5y ago
I've supported IJ for years and watched them fight these civil forfeiture cases onesey-twosey, but I really don't understand why they haven't gotten to SCOTUS and why something so blatantly against the constitution is allowed to stand (among many things, I know, but...)
- imback 5y ago
  there was a scotus case lately about this. pretty sure the police were covered under qualified immunity. my google fu is weak but it was in the past year. E: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity-supreme-court-urged-to-hear-case/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-c... cops (allegedly) stole $225000 but QI had them covered in the 9th circuit. scotus declined to pick up the case. for some background, the courts have declined to do anything about QI. they say it's legislator's job to fix it. odds are slim anything will happen.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > they say it's legislator's job to fix it. This response from the courts is maddening to me, since the courts invented QI. It’s your damn problem, clean it up yourself! I mean, at this point I’ll take anyone who will clean it up, but it’s such a shameful passing of the buck.
    - relaxing 5y ago
      The Supreme Court doesn’t actually see it as a problem. It’s entirely consistent with their conservative ideology.
    - imback 5y ago
      it's funny, there is no prior legal framework for this and the judiciary isn't supposed to magic things out of their dignified assholes, but there it is. legislation really needs to lay down the law here, if anywhere. a no-knock warrant on one of our congress-critters ending in execution-by-cop might fix it. yes i am angry.
noncompliant 5y ago
another reason to use your fifth amendment rights and NEVER talk to cops
m0llusk 5y ago
Wow, last I checked this was $2 billion a year but now it is up to $3 billion. That is a very large injustice.
fancyfredbot 5y ago
I bet equitable sharing seemed like a really smart idea at the time. A great/cheap way for the government to outbid drug dealers for the loyalty of corrupt (or corruptable) police officers. This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Goes to show how hard it is to create good law.
- revnode 5y ago
  All seized funds should go to the treasury. You get rid of the financial incentive, this stupidity goes away.
  - swixmix 5y ago
    Wasn't the financial incentive the reason for this in the first place? If that's the case then just remove civil forfeiture...
  - loonster 5y ago
    All seized funds should be held until released or destroyed (by the treasury). If it goes into the government's hands, they get the benefit. If its destroyed everyone gets a small benefit. For cases of real property, auction it off then destroy the cash.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    IIRC, in years past Texas has gotten rid of embarrassing speed-traps run by local police by requiring those local departments to turn all of their fines over to the state.
- kook_throwaway 5y ago
  >This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Why do you think it wasn't forseen?
phendrenad2 5y ago
They should just make it actually illegal to possess more than $10,000 in physical cash, rather than de facto illegal.
- draw_down 5y ago
  Actually “they” shouldn’t!
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  Why?
- josefx 5y ago
  They would also seize the $9000, $900 and maybe even $90 if they could get away with it without doing too much work. After all their department gets to keep 80% of it and a $72 bonus for a bit of paperwork sounds good, a few of those and they can upgrade the coffee machine.
altacc 5y ago
Just one of several good reasons why it's inaccurate to think that if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from the authorities.
- hkai 5y ago
  Governments are the source of the biggest atrocities and injustices in history, yet most Americans want to give the government more power. That won't end well.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    I don't think abolishing the federal government would get rid of local law enforcement agencies. They would probably just get worse.
    - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
      If anything the Feds should be the reasonable ones since they (in theory) derive their powers from the consensus of the entire nation, whereas state governments are more likely to implement reactionary and anti-human policies, especially if located in a region where those supportive of such policies tend to congregate. US Federal foreign policy IS fucked however, and I can see how ‘the Great Satan’ arose as an epithet.
      - CameronNemo 5y ago
        If a local jurisdiction implements an anti-human policy, humans have the ability to "vote with their feet" and leave that jurisdiction. It is harder to migrate on an international level.
        gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
        As a migrant I get it and have done it, but there are humans who cannot do it even locally. Take some single mother in a backwards part of a backwards state making near enough the absolute minimum wage. If her rights are curtailed even further, it’s not like she can just up and move. You need: - the means to move - a network (or the skills to build one) at your destination - the general knowledge to know where is good to go to - the street smarts to not get exploited when you arrive Though at the same time there are many who don’t dream and just get stuck in the drudgery and lose the will the fight despite having a good shot. Demoralized.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
As a non-US person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ? I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?
- emsy 5y ago
  I think the reason is that US-Americans are really into pretending they care about their veterans.
  - a3n 5y ago
    And the Veterans Administration puts the "pretend" in "care." Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > don't all citizens have the same rights? For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise. It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question. In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.
WhompingWindows 5y ago
The Veteran never learned: Don't talk to the cops. "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Is all he needs to say. "So when the officer asked him about carrying cash, Stephen said “yes.” When the officer asked to search his car, he said “yes.” And when the officer asked about the source of the cash, Stephen showed him over two years’ worth of bank receipts. Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked."
- skybrian 5y ago
  Yes, but more relevant in this case is not carrying around $86,000 in cash. It’s legal but not smart.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Excuse me, but to hell with this logic. While you agree it is not a crime, the reality of enforcement measures like this means it de facto is considered one in the gestalt of law enforcement. It should not ever be construed as suspicious to carry around large quantities of cash. It is not acceptable to see someone with over 2000 dollars in cash, and assume they are up to something. People are losing sight of the fact that financial privacy was the default for much of history, and the new phenomena of financial surveillance since the 2000's is absolutely a governmental power play, utilizing the financial system as a tool for soft power projection in that the hand that defines the set of transactions that can be conveniently done wields an immense amount of power and influence in people's day to day lives. This is a shining example of how the United States has abandoned any semblance of being a fundamentally high trust society anymore.
  - CodesInChaos 5y ago
    At least in countries where armed highway robbery is common, which apparently includes the US.
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    You're right it's stupid this guy clearly deserved to have his money stolen illegally by the government. it's doubly his fault because he allowed the police officer to follow him for long enough that he violated one of the uncountable number of traffic laws. it's Triply his fault because he was trying to be kind and courteous and respectful and cooperative with the officer. what other ways can we blame the guy who had his money stolen for getting his money stolen?
stevespang 5y ago
Joe Biden supported creating this CF law. CF is nothing more than empowering American police officers to lower themselves down to the same standards as what used to be that Mexican cops would turn into pirates at night on their highways - - - only now it's 24 hours a day.
javajosh 5y ago
According to MSN [1], the DEA decided last week to give him his money back. They kept the money for 200 days, in violation of the Federal statute requiring the DEA to file a case within 90 days. It's unclear what, if any, repercussions there will be for the DEA for violating the law. Astoundingly, the Nevada Highway Patrol did not violate the law. That only means, of course, it's a terrible law and needs to be eliminated. Hopefully there will be some consequences for police that abuse this bad law, but that will have to come from local voters. Note that $87k in 100's is a stack about 4" thick. It sickens me to hear people blaming the victim for the non-crime of holding his own cash, with bank receipts, and for the non-crime of simply telling the officer the truth and being totally cooperative. The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences. 1 - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nhp-for-seizing-his-87000-in-life-savings-during-traffic-stop/ar-AAO1Gvr https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nh...
- pbourke 5y ago
  > The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences. Would that have changed the outcome in this case?
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    Hard to say, but he voluntarily informed the police he had a large amount of money with him in the car during a routine traffic stop. We know for sure that this cooperation led to the money being seized. We can't know if staying silent would have led to a different outcome.
    - caseyross 5y ago
      According to the article, the officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency in the car. There's no way to weasel out of answering that kind of direct question if you've already been cooperative with other questions. It's possible, though uncertain, that he might have kept his money by categorically refusing to talk from the start of the stop.
indymike 5y ago
This is crazy. The local cops filed to keep the money under a DEA program. There is no scenario where the cops were honest with the DEA in order to get the money seized. I'm pretty sure if you put this on the form, the DEA will not move forward with the process: "Man was transporting life savings to his new home. Had 10 years of receipts proving ownership of the money in his possession."
- Ceiling 5y ago
  People keep blaming the police (rightfully so, to a degree) but it’s the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. If they lied or manufactured evidence, they must be held accountable.
  - indymike 5y ago
    > the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. Prosecutors (not everywhere in calls them DAs) have a huge disincentive: they rely on police officers to testify, investigate and collect evidence.
    - Ceiling 5y ago
      Sorry, prosecutors. If they’re not attempting to prosecute potential crimes, they should be disbarred. If cops are lying or omitting evidence, they should be fired and charged themselves with obstruction. The current route is eroding our faith in the system which is showing it’s result already. Many people are anti-vax because of their distrust. But there’s MANY examples.
  - NelsonMinar 5y ago
    What do you think is funding the DA's office?
  - kook_throwaway 5y ago
    Its the entire system. The police, courts, judges, DAs, legislature. Those with power will always stand together against those that don't have it.
leephillips 5y ago
Trump is probably responsible for this, as his Justice Department reversed the limitations on federal loot-sharing put in effect by Obama’s administration. Has Biden fixed this? Why not? All he needs to do is order the DEA and his other agencies not to commit or cooperate with civil forfeiture.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The civil asset forfieture problem won't be solved until someone goes postal with such enthusiasm that it puts the judiciary and the legislature on notice that people are sick of them not solving the problem and are solving the problem themselves. Look at history. The government pretty much never solves problems that are a cash cow from them unless there is a high likelihood that further ignoring the problem will cause bloodshed.
User23 5y ago
The best thing about civil asset forfeiture is that it gives us funny case names like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls[1]. Otherwise it's terrible. I don't have a problem with convictions carrying an obligation to make financial restitution, but this isn't that. The notion of filing suit against an inanimate object is ridiculous. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/1281/1660578/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/4...
bob229 5y ago
GOD BLESS AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE
shawnz 5y ago
I think the ability to resist overreaching policies like civil forfeiture is one of the strongest arguments for people in the western world to have access to cryptocurrencies.
OJFord 5y ago
There must be more to this, what are the odds a person who keeps life savings in cash happens to move it at the time some police are prowling to invent a reason to stop and search a vehicle, and happens to be the vehicle chosen? I'm not saying 'great law guys, nothing to see here' (in my country a quick search suggests same exists, but needs a warrant from a magistrate, and there's no DEA for that weird twist) but the article just seems to be painting it in the most bizarre obviously wrong light possible.
- UncleEntity 5y ago
  There is more to this, the police target vehicles with licences from states that border Mexico hoping to grab some quick drug cash heading that way.
betwixthewires 5y ago
> Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked. Mistake number one. The only things you should be saying to a cop are "lawyer" and "". They ask if they can search your vehicle? The answer is no, always, on principle. And even though, on principle, there's nothing wrong with it, why would you ride around with 86k in cash on you? That was also a mistake. What the officers did was wrong, civil asset forfeiture is wrong, the man was well within his rights, but at the end of the day you're responsible for yourself. Know your rights, know your recourse, exercise them, and protect yourself from everybody, even the Good Guys™
specialist 5y ago
The way the boa constrictor continues to squeeze, I keep wondering when masses of people spontaneously go full Pete Goddard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up
bradgranath 5y ago
I used to live in Winnemucca, NV. State Patrol and Humboldt County sherrifs used to do this All the time. Thankfully never had any cash on me, although they grilled me pretty hard about some skis one time.

349 points by tomohawk 5y ago

beezle 5y ago

So if I win big at a Nevada casino should I immediately buy a Rolex or two?

pbourke 5y ago
No you should go to a bank.
a3n 5y ago
Any property can be seized. Put it in a financial institution, and dispose of it as you see fit at your destination.
salawat 5y ago
If you put it in the bank, as others suggest, you're opting into financial surveillance as half of KYC/AML is focused around turning the financial services industry into a surveillance for law enforcement. The real problem is that law enforcement has a fairly good chance of getting a big chunk of money, and your odds of litigating successfully without those funds are low. That's the fundamental problem. Fix legalized theft by law enforcement. The rest will sort itself out.

morpheos137 5y ago

Civil forfeiture is wrong but the story described here is bizarre. The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? It may not be a crime but it is really stupid. What if he was in a wreck? Something does not add up here. Free checking and savings accounts exist and they are FDIC insured. There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.

cwwc 5y ago
this does seem odd, i agree.
aqme28 5y ago
How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.
- casion 5y ago
  It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy. If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.
      - aqme28 5y ago
        > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I was responding to this comment: > Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
        morpheos137 5y ago
        I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days. What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one." The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
geofft 5y ago
I would imagine that a vet has plenty of reasons not to trust the government.
- chenmike 5y ago
  Agreed but then the bizarre part was consenting to a search of his vehicle.
  - polotics 5y ago
    I would not necessarily be aware of any right to not consent to a search.
    - shadowprofile76 5y ago
      The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
      - geofft 5y ago
        Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count. The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
superbatfish 5y ago
Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel. The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them. I can’t think of a better example than this case. [1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-too-many-americans-do-it.html https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...
- salawat 5y ago
  >Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution. Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business. This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.
5555624 5y ago
According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
tyingq 5y ago
>The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances. Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.
CPLX 5y ago
I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.
josefx 5y ago
> and they are FDIC insured. So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.

broahmed 5y ago

Love IJ. They do some great work. One of my favorite cases: https://youtu.be/HujPlUyTXRY https://youtu.be/HujPlUyTXRY

polotics 5y ago

One of the many reasons why I am always quite reserved when visiting the US.

throwaway894345 5y ago
This is a terrible thing and laws need to be changed, but it’s an absolute aberration.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Define “aberration”? As of 2015, police via civil forfeiture stole more than burglars. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
  - adventured 5y ago
    An estimated $68.8 billion over 20 years approximately, between state and federal authorities. The Institute for Justice has published a couple of their Policing for Profit profiles (that attempts to keep track of and update on civil asset forfeiture figures and progress/regression), with the most recent in 2020. California is averaging $25m per year the past 17 years; Illinois is averaging $33m per year; Texas is averaging $18m per year; Florida is averaging $49m per year. Some of the best states are Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut and Missouri. Here's an infographic by the Institute for Justice for 2018, sizing the states by their civil asset forfeiture thefts (note, the color of the box doesn't coordinate to the scale of theft, that coordinates to state law grades): https://i.imgur.com/sqg4FiC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/sqg4FiC.jpg It's too bad these scumbags aren't targeting Michael Dell ($50b), Jim Walton ($65b) or MacKenzie Scott ($61b) with civil asset forfeiture. Sorry MacKenzie, that Amazon stock no longer belongs to you, it has been 'impounded' by the Washington State Police. It's being held as, uhm, evidence that you may have had a role in the operation of a massive counterfeit goods ring. Congress or the Supreme Court might finally get around to stopping the practice (or maybe they'd just place a ceiling on how much you can steal from one person).

5555624 5y ago

Another article, including a video of the beginning of the encounter, as well as Lara asking foe the cop's information: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...

jacksonkmarley 5y ago

> The stop was a pretext to ask Stephen about his trip, and “a bunch of silly questions,” like “[are there] any large amounts of United States currency in the vehicle.” Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. If the DEA really didn't comply with it's legal obligations about returning the money/explaining though, I guess the guy has a pretty strong case to get it all back plus a bit extra. Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever. Principle? I have a lot of questions about this story.

richk449 5y ago
> Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. … or he asks everyone that he pulls over that question.
- jacksonkmarley 5y ago
  Seemed weirdly specific to me, but I guess in certain areas with lots of drug sales or whatever it could be more generally applicable.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    In jurisdictions that make heavy use of civil forfeiture, it’s a standard question. It’s unfortunately common in some small towns and low population counties as it’s a large chunk of their funding.
    - jacksonkmarley 5y ago
      That certainly puts a different light on how I was looking at the topic.
  - 5y ago

jrexilius 5y ago

I've supported IJ for years and watched them fight these civil forfeiture cases onesey-twosey, but I really don't understand why they haven't gotten to SCOTUS and why something so blatantly against the constitution is allowed to stand (among many things, I know, but...)

imback 5y ago
there was a scotus case lately about this. pretty sure the police were covered under qualified immunity. my google fu is weak but it was in the past year. E: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity-supreme-court-urged-to-hear-case/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-c... cops (allegedly) stole $225000 but QI had them covered in the 9th circuit. scotus declined to pick up the case. for some background, the courts have declined to do anything about QI. they say it's legislator's job to fix it. odds are slim anything will happen.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > they say it's legislator's job to fix it. This response from the courts is maddening to me, since the courts invented QI. It’s your damn problem, clean it up yourself! I mean, at this point I’ll take anyone who will clean it up, but it’s such a shameful passing of the buck.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    The Supreme Court doesn’t actually see it as a problem. It’s entirely consistent with their conservative ideology.
  - imback 5y ago
    it's funny, there is no prior legal framework for this and the judiciary isn't supposed to magic things out of their dignified assholes, but there it is. legislation really needs to lay down the law here, if anywhere. a no-knock warrant on one of our congress-critters ending in execution-by-cop might fix it. yes i am angry.

noncompliant 5y ago

another reason to use your fifth amendment rights and NEVER talk to cops

m0llusk 5y ago

Wow, last I checked this was $2 billion a year but now it is up to $3 billion. That is a very large injustice.

fancyfredbot 5y ago

I bet equitable sharing seemed like a really smart idea at the time. A great/cheap way for the government to outbid drug dealers for the loyalty of corrupt (or corruptable) police officers. This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Goes to show how hard it is to create good law.

revnode 5y ago
All seized funds should go to the treasury. You get rid of the financial incentive, this stupidity goes away.
- swixmix 5y ago
  Wasn't the financial incentive the reason for this in the first place? If that's the case then just remove civil forfeiture...
- loonster 5y ago
  All seized funds should be held until released or destroyed (by the treasury). If it goes into the government's hands, they get the benefit. If its destroyed everyone gets a small benefit. For cases of real property, auction it off then destroy the cash.
- mcguire 5y ago
  IIRC, in years past Texas has gotten rid of embarrassing speed-traps run by local police by requiring those local departments to turn all of their fines over to the state.
kook_throwaway 5y ago
>This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Why do you think it wasn't forseen?

phendrenad2 5y ago

They should just make it actually illegal to possess more than $10,000 in physical cash, rather than de facto illegal.

draw_down 5y ago
Actually “they” shouldn’t!
eggsmediumrare 5y ago
Why?
josefx 5y ago
They would also seize the $9000, $900 and maybe even $90 if they could get away with it without doing too much work. After all their department gets to keep 80% of it and a $72 bonus for a bit of paperwork sounds good, a few of those and they can upgrade the coffee machine.

altacc 5y ago

Just one of several good reasons why it's inaccurate to think that if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from the authorities.

hkai 5y ago
Governments are the source of the biggest atrocities and injustices in history, yet most Americans want to give the government more power. That won't end well.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  I don't think abolishing the federal government would get rid of local law enforcement agencies. They would probably just get worse.
  - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
    If anything the Feds should be the reasonable ones since they (in theory) derive their powers from the consensus of the entire nation, whereas state governments are more likely to implement reactionary and anti-human policies, especially if located in a region where those supportive of such policies tend to congregate. US Federal foreign policy IS fucked however, and I can see how ‘the Great Satan’ arose as an epithet.
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      If a local jurisdiction implements an anti-human policy, humans have the ability to "vote with their feet" and leave that jurisdiction. It is harder to migrate on an international level.
      - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
        As a migrant I get it and have done it, but there are humans who cannot do it even locally. Take some single mother in a backwards part of a backwards state making near enough the absolute minimum wage. If her rights are curtailed even further, it’s not like she can just up and move. You need: - the means to move - a network (or the skills to build one) at your destination - the general knowledge to know where is good to go to - the street smarts to not get exploited when you arrive Though at the same time there are many who don’t dream and just get stuck in the drudgery and lose the will the fight despite having a good shot. Demoralized.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

As a non-US person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ? I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?

emsy 5y ago
I think the reason is that US-Americans are really into pretending they care about their veterans.
- a3n 5y ago
  And the Veterans Administration puts the "pretend" in "care." Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> don't all citizens have the same rights? For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise. It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question. In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.

WhompingWindows 5y ago

The Veteran never learned: Don't talk to the cops. "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Is all he needs to say. "So when the officer asked him about carrying cash, Stephen said “yes.” When the officer asked to search his car, he said “yes.” And when the officer asked about the source of the cash, Stephen showed him over two years’ worth of bank receipts. Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked."

skybrian 5y ago
Yes, but more relevant in this case is not carrying around $86,000 in cash. It’s legal but not smart.
- salawat 5y ago
  Excuse me, but to hell with this logic. While you agree it is not a crime, the reality of enforcement measures like this means it de facto is considered one in the gestalt of law enforcement. It should not ever be construed as suspicious to carry around large quantities of cash. It is not acceptable to see someone with over 2000 dollars in cash, and assume they are up to something. People are losing sight of the fact that financial privacy was the default for much of history, and the new phenomena of financial surveillance since the 2000's is absolutely a governmental power play, utilizing the financial system as a tool for soft power projection in that the hand that defines the set of transactions that can be conveniently done wields an immense amount of power and influence in people's day to day lives. This is a shining example of how the United States has abandoned any semblance of being a fundamentally high trust society anymore.
- CodesInChaos 5y ago
  At least in countries where armed highway robbery is common, which apparently includes the US.
- grayhatter 5y ago
  You're right it's stupid this guy clearly deserved to have his money stolen illegally by the government. it's doubly his fault because he allowed the police officer to follow him for long enough that he violated one of the uncountable number of traffic laws. it's Triply his fault because he was trying to be kind and courteous and respectful and cooperative with the officer. what other ways can we blame the guy who had his money stolen for getting his money stolen?

stevespang 5y ago

Joe Biden supported creating this CF law. CF is nothing more than empowering American police officers to lower themselves down to the same standards as what used to be that Mexican cops would turn into pirates at night on their highways - - - only now it's 24 hours a day.

javajosh 5y ago

According to MSN [1], the DEA decided last week to give him his money back. They kept the money for 200 days, in violation of the Federal statute requiring the DEA to file a case within 90 days. It's unclear what, if any, repercussions there will be for the DEA for violating the law. Astoundingly, the Nevada Highway Patrol did not violate the law. That only means, of course, it's a terrible law and needs to be eliminated. Hopefully there will be some consequences for police that abuse this bad law, but that will have to come from local voters. Note that $87k in 100's is a stack about 4" thick. It sickens me to hear people blaming the victim for the non-crime of holding his own cash, with bank receipts, and for the non-crime of simply telling the officer the truth and being totally cooperative. The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences. 1 - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nhp-for-seizing-his-87000-in-life-savings-during-traffic-stop/ar-AAO1Gvr https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nh...

pbourke 5y ago
> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences. Would that have changed the outcome in this case?
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Hard to say, but he voluntarily informed the police he had a large amount of money with him in the car during a routine traffic stop. We know for sure that this cooperation led to the money being seized. We can't know if staying silent would have led to a different outcome.
  - caseyross 5y ago
    According to the article, the officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency in the car. There's no way to weasel out of answering that kind of direct question if you've already been cooperative with other questions. It's possible, though uncertain, that he might have kept his money by categorically refusing to talk from the start of the stop.

indymike 5y ago

This is crazy. The local cops filed to keep the money under a DEA program. There is no scenario where the cops were honest with the DEA in order to get the money seized. I'm pretty sure if you put this on the form, the DEA will not move forward with the process: "Man was transporting life savings to his new home. Had 10 years of receipts proving ownership of the money in his possession."

Ceiling 5y ago
People keep blaming the police (rightfully so, to a degree) but it’s the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. If they lied or manufactured evidence, they must be held accountable.
- indymike 5y ago
  > the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. Prosecutors (not everywhere in calls them DAs) have a huge disincentive: they rely on police officers to testify, investigate and collect evidence.
  - Ceiling 5y ago
    Sorry, prosecutors. If they’re not attempting to prosecute potential crimes, they should be disbarred. If cops are lying or omitting evidence, they should be fired and charged themselves with obstruction. The current route is eroding our faith in the system which is showing it’s result already. Many people are anti-vax because of their distrust. But there’s MANY examples.
- NelsonMinar 5y ago
  What do you think is funding the DA's office?
- kook_throwaway 5y ago
  Its the entire system. The police, courts, judges, DAs, legislature. Those with power will always stand together against those that don't have it.

leephillips 5y ago

Trump is probably responsible for this, as his Justice Department reversed the limitations on federal loot-sharing put in effect by Obama’s administration. Has Biden fixed this? Why not? All he needs to do is order the DEA and his other agencies not to commit or cooperate with civil forfeiture.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The civil asset forfieture problem won't be solved until someone goes postal with such enthusiasm that it puts the judiciary and the legislature on notice that people are sick of them not solving the problem and are solving the problem themselves. Look at history. The government pretty much never solves problems that are a cash cow from them unless there is a high likelihood that further ignoring the problem will cause bloodshed.

User23 5y ago

The best thing about civil asset forfeiture is that it gives us funny case names like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls[1]. Otherwise it's terrible. I don't have a problem with convictions carrying an obligation to make financial restitution, but this isn't that. The notion of filing suit against an inanimate object is ridiculous. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/1281/1660578/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/4...

bob229 5y ago

GOD BLESS AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE

shawnz 5y ago

I think the ability to resist overreaching policies like civil forfeiture is one of the strongest arguments for people in the western world to have access to cryptocurrencies.

OJFord 5y ago

There must be more to this, what are the odds a person who keeps life savings in cash happens to move it at the time some police are prowling to invent a reason to stop and search a vehicle, and happens to be the vehicle chosen? I'm not saying 'great law guys, nothing to see here' (in my country a quick search suggests same exists, but needs a warrant from a magistrate, and there's no DEA for that weird twist) but the article just seems to be painting it in the most bizarre obviously wrong light possible.

UncleEntity 5y ago
There is more to this, the police target vehicles with licences from states that border Mexico hoping to grab some quick drug cash heading that way.

betwixthewires 5y ago

> Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked. Mistake number one. The only things you should be saying to a cop are "lawyer" and "". They ask if they can search your vehicle? The answer is no, always, on principle. And even though, on principle, there's nothing wrong with it, why would you ride around with 86k in cash on you? That was also a mistake. What the officers did was wrong, civil asset forfeiture is wrong, the man was well within his rights, but at the end of the day you're responsible for yourself. Know your rights, know your recourse, exercise them, and protect yourself from everybody, even the Good Guys™

specialist 5y ago

The way the boa constrictor continues to squeeze, I keep wondering when masses of people spontaneously go full Pete Goddard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up

bradgranath 5y ago

I used to live in Winnemucca, NV. State Patrol and Humboldt County sherrifs used to do this All the time. Thankfully never had any cash on me, although they grilled me pretty hard about some skis one time.