Asset Forfeiture: ACLU Sues DEA Over Trucker's Seized Cash

[GladiatoRowdy]

Asset Forfeiture: ACLU Sues DEA Over Trucker's Seized Cash

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...rs_seized_cash

A trucker who lost nearly $24,000 in cash after it was seized by a New Mexico police officer and turned over to the DEA is suing the federal drug agency to get his money back. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) New Mexico affiliate is handling the case. It filed the lawsuit on August 23.

On August 8, truck driver Anastasio Prieto of El Paso was stopped at a weigh station on US Highway 54 just north of El Paso. A police officer there asked for permission to search the truck for "needles or cash in excess of $10,000," according to the ACLU. Prieto said he didn't have any needles, but he was carrying $23,700 in cash. Officers seized the money and turned it over to the DEA, while DEA agents photographed and fingerprinted Prieto despite his objections, then released him without charges after he had been detained for six hours. Border Patrol agents sicced drug-sniffing dogs on his truck, but found no evidence of illegal drugs.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU argues that the state police and DEA violated Prieto's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure by taking his money without 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.

DEA agents told Prieto that to get his money back, he would have to prove it was his and not the proceeds of illegal drug sales. That process could take up to a year, the agents said.

But New Mexico ACLU state director Peter Simonson told the Associated Press Prieto needed his money now to pay bills. "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."

According to the lawsuit, Prieto does not like banks and carries his savings as cash.

That's not a crime. But what the DEA did to him is, or should be.

[GladiatoRowdy]

No evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever and now the trucker has to prove a negative: That the money was not tied to drugs in any way.

It is sad what drugs have done to this country. They have made us paranoid freaks willing to give up our liberties to chase the white whale that is a "drug free America."

[Trader_Jorge]

Oh man, that story and the subsequent opinion musings of andymoon just made me change my whole outlook on whether or not drugs are bad for society!! Thanks andy!

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by Trader_Jorge Oh man, that story and the subsequent opinion musings of andymoon just made me change my whole outlook on whether or not drugs are bad for society!! Thanks andy!

The question never has been whether "drugs are bad for society," it is whether prohibition is the best way to approach the problems inherent in drug use.

Clearly, prohibition is as bad as throwing gasoline on a fire. At least, that is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to when confronted by your "arguments" against my writing on this issue.

[kokopuffs]

This is worse than eminent domain. This is plainly a case of thinly disguised racial profiling leading to an unlawful seizure of property.

[DonkeyMagic]

Originally Posted by kokopuffs This is worse than eminent domain. This is plainly a case of thinly disguised racial profiling leading to an unlawful seizure of property.

how do you know its racial? maybe the cop who searched him was the same race?

I can understand the suspicion with seeing a guy with that much cash, but after they searched and found no evidence of drugs then he should have been let go

[NewYorker]

If it were a $1,000, I'd agree. But carrying $23K with you and you're a truck driver? That doesn't make any sense.

[pirc1]

Originally Posted by NewYorker If it were a $1,000, I'd agree. But carrying $23K with you and you're a truck driver? That doesn't make any sense.

But you cann't take away people's money based on it doesn't make sense. I know some Asians that keep all their savings under the bed, that doesn't make sense either. Government has to prove their is a crime before they can take people's money.

[Bandwagoner]

DEA doesn;t have to prove anything. They can also seize your house without a conviction. Welcome to the war on drugs.

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by NewYorker If it were a $1,000, I'd agree. But carrying $23K with you and you're a truck driver? That doesn't make any sense.

and therefore its right to keep his money. if that's the kind of country you want to live in, I guess

[DonkeyMagic]

Originally Posted by pgabriel and therefore its right to keep his money. if that's the kind of country you want to live in, I guess

but it is at the very least a little suspicious, odd, peculiar, etc. You have to at least admit that. That much cash should raise a red flag, he should have been checked out thoroughly. It just seems they took it too far in this instance

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by DonkeyMagic but it is at the very least a little suspicious, odd, peculiar, etc. You have to at least admit that. That much cash should raise a red flag, he should have been checked out thoroughly. It just seems they took it too far in this instance

you're right, actually every cash transaction over ten thousand at least at a bank is reported to the irs. but he shouldn't lose his money, or at the very least, have to prove where he got it.

[Major]

Originally Posted by pgabriel you're right, actually every cash transaction over ten thousand at least at a bank is reported to the irs. but he shouldn't lose his money, or at the very least, have to prove where he got it.

Exactly - the proof should be on the government to seize the money, not on the truck driver to keep his money.

[DonkeyMagic]

Originally Posted by pgabriel you're right, actually every cash transaction over ten thousand at least at a bank is reported to the irs. but he shouldn't lose his money, or at the very least, have to prove where he got it.

yeah, if its all legit and his then he should keep his money.

[NewYorker]

Originally Posted by pirc1 But you cann't take away people's money based on it doesn't make sense. I know some Asians that keep all their savings under the bed, that doesn't make sense either. Government has to prove their is a crime before they can take people's money.

I am not sure I buy the whole stashing money under the bed thing.

Anyway, certainly depends on many factors. Was the money in various bills, or was it all in 20's or whatever. I don't know the other circumstances that made them suspicious.

But I do think that if there's no evidence of him being involved in the drug trade or that is money is not associated with drugs, he should get his money back.

That being said, why would you carry your life savings in your truck across the border? What if he got robbed? It's just not secure and I don't buy it.

[Trader_Jorge]

andymoon, how naive are you if you believe that stopthedrugwar.com is presenting you an accurate depiction of the events? I love it how some of you give law enforcement no credibility whatsoever and think they are all a bunch of racist thieves. How about supporting our men and women in uniform every once in a while, instead of automatically presuming they are sinister villains?

[Rocket River]

Originally Posted by NewYorker That being said, why would you carry your life savings in your truck across the border? What if he got robbed? It's just not secure and I don't buy it.

Well the point is. . . he don't have to have a reason
he doesn't [shouldn't] have to explain it to any one
its his money . . if he want to tape it to his stomach
its his money!

Rocket River
foolish should not be illegal

[JuanValdez]

Originally Posted by James Madison No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

hmmm, I'm just not seeing how the DEA could not lose this case.

[Refman]

Originally Posted by pgabriel you're right, actually every cash transaction over ten thousand at least at a bank is reported to the irs. but he shouldn't lose his money, or at the very least, have to prove where he got it.

I agree.

I believe that a truck driver carrying $23k in cash certainly gives probable cause for a search. It is common for drug runners to carry large sums of cash and drive a truck to conduct their business.

If the government cannot garner sufficient evidence to support an indictment, they need to give the man his money back, tell him to have a nice day, and give him directions to the nearest bank.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by DonkeyMagic how do you know its racial? maybe the cop who searched him was the same race? I can understand the suspicion with seeing a guy with that much cash, but after they searched and found no evidence of drugs then he should have been let go

That is the thing. HE was let go at the scene, it was his money that is accused of being related to drugs. In asset forfeiture, that means that the owner of the money has to prove that it was not related to drugs.

Proving a negative, guilty until proven innocent, and a process that will let the government keep his guys money for up to a year while he fights against it.