Nevada Court Shuts Down Police Use of Federal Loophole for Civil Forfeiture
92 comments
·January 15, 2025treebeard901
the-dude
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality.
Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
soco
Are you sure the "any amount" generalization is true? I know in Switzerland of money confiscated at border control for simple suspicion, but we are talking (tens of) thousands. Although there's a certain obligation of declaration those people always "forget", that situation stays shitty, but in any case it's a very very far cry from "any amount".
MEMORYC_RRUPTED
While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
the-dude
What is small and what is large is a matter of opinion.
If they are out to get you and can't find anything incriminating, cash will do. The press will happily report on this too : 'There was a police raid so and so, nothing was found but they found a (large) amount of cash'.
Furthermore, our government is planning legislation to make cash transactions > € 3000 illegal.
coldtea
Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money...
insane_dreamer
The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.
krispyfi
It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
aqme28
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
thatcat
This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.
lawn
It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of an entire house because someone once had drugs there.
There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.
coldtea
In general, it's pretty messed up that there's an exceptionalism about drug related crime (and some other kinds of crime).
Crime is crime. If they don't take custody of a house because some kind of crime X happened there, they shouldn't do it for drug related cases either. They can always arrest the person dealing the drugs and forgeit the drugs themselves.
coldtea
It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the law.
Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...
Over2Chars
As you note it's not built into other legal systems. In which case, those other legal systems aren't automatically corrupt or based on extortion.
A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the protection of citizens, etc.
Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like Roman justice.
This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should.
sigmoid10
>unlike some other countries
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
kawsper
UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
sigmoid10
That's not presuming guilt. And I'm pretty sure the other commenter wasn't referring to the UK as some countries.
maccard
I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all.
I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal, it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
null
casenmgreen
I'm afraid that this happened, where it is so plainly and fundamentally wrong, expresses that something is fundamentally wrong with the police, and I think it is across the USA? as this behaviour is I think widespread?
darreninthenet
We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police don't consider normal). The seized items were either being actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house with no other explanation)
JumpCrisscross
> Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption
I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
latency-guy2
Forfeiture is different from seizure. Seizure is perfectly legal, and even ought to be required pending completion of a court case.
Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on seized property.
I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process. However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
I recommend reading 983 article guidelines for asset forfeiture/seizure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983
It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are not so speedy anymore.
I'm not a lawyer of course
MathMonkeyMan
I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency.
I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
pizza234
It's written in a referenced article (https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/):
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Over2Chars
The part about the receipts I had missed.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
pizza234
> Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
I don't live in the USA, but to my understanding, it’s common for individuals from minority groups to be taught by their families specific behaviors for interacting with police, such as how to position their hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if this also includes notifying the police about personal belongings that could potentially raise suspicion.
YawningAngel
It might be naive, but I don't think it's suspicious to be forthright with the police
loa_in_
Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
BrenBarn
Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
JumpCrisscross
> laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes
Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
BrenBarn
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
MathMonkeyMan
That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute.
Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?"
The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
JumpCrisscross
> Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.”
Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption.
Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
Gibbon1
My preference is 100% of fines and siezed property should go to the Social Security Administration.
Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.
blindriver
How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.
tdb7893
I can believe it. Both parties are pretty "law and order" and rely on relationships with the police. Why piss off an important group of people for an issue that isn't going to sway any votes.
Reform here is something which would presumably have a large amount of support but that's enough to get a law passed or the US would look very different, there are tons of popular things that will never be laws.
AngryData
Corruption is a large part of what funds our criminal justice system, and politicians will never do anything to make them appear like they are against law enforcement or "soft on crime".
db48x
It has its roots in something very necessary: disposal of abandoned property, especially illegal goods for which no owner can be identified. Of course it has gotten slightly out of hand.
Dylan16807
But most abandoned property doesn't go through that process, does it?
db48x
Garbage found at the side of the street, no. A bag of heroin found in an abandoned building, certainly.
JumpCrisscross
> How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point?
Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals? I’m almost ready to PAC an elected prosecutor who commits to taking a test case to SCOTUS.
dragonwriter
> Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals?
Not really, cases on civil forfeiture do make it to the US Supreme Court, the most recent case being decided in 2024.
nadermx
If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why
aziaziazi
I read that as "those who watch it already know".
Could you or someone else share what’s shown in that series? I’m not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.
AnthonyMouse
The Wire is about the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is responsible for probably 75% of the shockingly oppressive laws still on the books, with most of the balance being the War on Terror.
defrost
There's a scene in which an aide for a city politician is stopped leaving known drug dealing actors and the car is found to have bag stuffed with a large amount of cash which is seized.
The point moving forward is will anybody claim the cash and offer an explanation as to where it came from.
The above "you'll know why" appears to carry an implicit "because all cash with no receipt is criminal proceeds".
The problem with that is stories abound of Police seizing cash and other assets and keeping them, spending money, auctioning goods, etc that were never criminal proceeds .. or rather never proved to be criminal proceeds.
moomin
The Wire is a great show, but it’s still copaganda. Dude managed to create a five year show set in the Baltimore Police Department without mentioning racism once.
sneak
Everyone viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the state has stopped using cash, so leaving this in place as an additional risk to carrying or using cash is a nice bonus in the war against financial privacy and freedom.
One more nail in the coffin of being able to transact in ways either unknown to or unapproved by the state.
In 2011 I spoke at the CCC about why it’s essential to have free and censorship-resistant payments that the state cannot veto:
https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...
Always use and carry cash. Always tip in cash. Don’t do business with places that don’t accept cash. Store some cash in your home and your car (hidden) for emergencies.
courseofaction
The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?
cm2187
Why not? If you want good meat, give financial incentives to your butcher. If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police. The problem isn't the presence of financial incentives, but badly designed financial incentives.
noisy_boy
Depends on the definition of the financial incentive. If it means bonus, then this doesn't handle cases of incompetence or malice, they will still get their salary. If that includes salary too e.g. financial penalties, then you'll get police doing things specifically to preserve their salary and instead of focusing on their core responsibilities.
Just carrots, whatever the definition, won't fix everything, there are assholes in every profession, you need sticks too.
BrenBarn
> If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police.
But civil asset forfeiture isn't incentivizing good policing.
cm2187
Agree, that's an example of a badly designed incentive.
moomin
The problem’s deeper than that: and financial incentive you design, you provide a financial incentive to abuse it. This is why so few people recommend metric-based compensation.
cm2187
Not sure where you saw that few people recommend that. In a company, managers are routinely incentivised based on specific metrics (good or bad, typically budget plus some softer metrics). It's the norm, not the exception.
It was even the case in communist russia by the way. With horribly designed metrics, like maximising tonnage of a factory output, which lead factory managers to ditch better product for lesser, heavier products. I think it was described in the book Red Plenty.
Again the problem isn't incentives, it is badly designed incentives.
JumpCrisscross
> CMV?
Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
anal_reactor
Chupa mi vagina
SllX
Reddit lingo. Change My View.
Dylan16807
I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that before. Let's not do that.
eesmith
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
spencerflem
why would I do that? :p
opentokix
USA is truly a fucked up country
PoppinFreshDo
[flagged]
h0l0cube
It's amazing how the presumption of innocence – one of the pillars of a fair justice system – has eroded away in the popular consciousness in the last few decades. I'm not sure what inspires takes like this beyond sheer callousness, to simply not wonder what happens to those wrongfully convicted/affected by prejudice. Thinking they did it isn't knowing, and it certainly isn't enough to justify ruining (or taking) someone's life.
simoncion
I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness. I suspect that it's roughly at the same place as it was in the 1980s. I suspect the big differences that shape one's contemporary perception of the topic are the conversion of most major US-based news agencies to publishing very little but "shock and outrage" stories, and the prevalence of the Internet Hate Machine that is clickbait-promoting "social media" pushing rage-and/or-sorrow-inducing stories in one's face.
But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
h0l0cube
> I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness
I'm certain the social media and sensationalist broadcast media have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. Further to that, some of the wins of civil libertarians against draconian law enforcement has been eroded away by giving law enforcement sweeping powers via circumventions on due process such as the Patriot Act and that which is detailed in the OP
jjallen
Possession of money should not be a crime. Not everyone with money is “shady”.
JoshTriplett
Exactly. And the appropriate "safeguard" is conviction of a crime. At sentencing, it would be appropriate for a court to consider whether some amount of money constitutes the proceeds of a crime, and what the appropriate disposition of that money would be to best provided restitution to those harmed by the crime. And if there is some belief that something might happen to the assets before then, we have processes like preliminary injunctions, which have a high burden of proof. Until one of those things happens, there are no grounds to justify seizure of any assets.
NoMoreNicksLeft
>Possession of money should not be a crime.
Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
null
simoncion
> Cash has been illegal for a long time...
Weird. I pay for nearly everything with cash.
I agree that nearly all of the rest of the stuff your comment describes is totally real and totally bullshit, but please don't ruin a good retelling of the facts with breathless hyperbole.
yieldcrv
Hyperbolic
If you don’t mind reporting when moving into the electronic cash system or between borders then it is not illegal
The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank. Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen.
At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".