Pubdate: Sun, 16 Mar 2014
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)
Copyright: 2014 Las Vegas Review-Journal
Contact: http://www.reviewjournal.com/about/print/press/letterstoeditor.html
Website: http://www.lvrj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/233
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

SHAKEDOWNS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY

Asset Seizures Defy Presumption of Innocence

The people of this country enjoy the presumption of innocence when 
accused of criminal wrongdoing. Their possessions, however, are not 
afforded similar protections - especially along Interstate 80 in 
Nevada's Humboldt County.

Asset forfeiture and seizure laws turn constitutional rights upside 
down. Although you are innocent until proved guilty, authorities can 
take and keep your stuff if they suspect the assets were obtained or 
used in the commission of a crime. And to get the stuff back, whether 
it's cash, a car or a house, defendants face the burden of proving 
their property was obtained lawfully, a standard that flies in the 
face of due process.

Such laws invite abuse by police and prosecutors, who have a powerful 
financial incentive to swipe valuables for any reason that suits 
them: They can use the assets to bolster their department budgets. 
And they don't even have to charge someone with a crime to take their 
possessions, let alone convict them of a criminal offense.

Two federal lawsuits filed in Reno make a powerful argument for 
rolling back asset forfeiture laws. As reported by Scott Sonner of 
The Associated Press, in both cases, deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt 
County Sheriff's Department is accused of shaking down I-80 travelers 
without so much as writing them a citation.

According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of California resident Tan 
Nguyen, Mr. Dove stopped Mr. Nguyen Sept. 23 for driving 78 mph in a 
75 mph zone and claimed he smelled marijuana in the car. Mr. Nguyen 
said he did not consent to search of his vehicle, but Mr. Dove did so 
and found a briefcase containing $50,000. Mr. Nguyen said he won the 
money at a casino, but the deputy said he believed the money was 
obtained illegally. Mr. Dove took the cash, issued Mr. Nguyen a 
written warning for speeding and had him sign a "property for 
safekeeping receipt" indicating the money was abandoned and not 
returnable. There were no drugs in the car. Mr. Nguyen's lawsuit says 
he signed the receipt because the deputy had threatened to seize the 
rental vehicle and strand him unless Mr. Nguyen "got in his car and 
drove off and forgot this ever happened."

A lawsuit brought by Colorado resident Ken Smith alleges he was 
stopped Dec. 16 and detained on a warrant for another man with a 
similar name but a different race and birth date. Instead of 
arresting Mr. Smith on that warrant, Mr. Dove searched his car, 
seized $13,800 in cash and a handgun and allowed him to leave.

A lot of people in this state - gamblers, tip earners and regular 
folks who don't trust banks - carry large amounts of cash. That, by 
itself, is not a crime. These stops are nothing more than money 
grabs. The day after Mr. Nguyen's money was confiscated, Sheriff Ed 
Kilgore sent out a news release and photo of Mr. Dove posing with the 
cash and a police dog. "This cash would have been used to purchase 
illegal drugs and now will benefit Humboldt County with training and 
equipment," the release said with absolute certainty. "Great job."

It's one thing for police to serve a search warrant on a home, find 
hundreds of pounds of illegal narcotics, and seize cash and cars as 
evidence in a criminal prosecution. It's entirely another to use 
profiled traffic stops as a pretext for dubious searches that 
otherwise lack probable cause. Across the country, police departments 
have seized and spent tens of millions of dollars without related 
criminal convictions. In many cases, departments overwhelmingly 
target racial and ethnic minorities. They push the same deal Mr. Dove 
is accused of offering: surrender your cash or surrender your 
freedom. As The New Yorker reported last year, police have even 
threatened to take children and turn them over to protective services 
if parents refused to give up their property.

This kind of policing tramples the Constitution. The erosion of 
Fourth Amendment protections and property rights is a slippery slope. 
There's nothing to stop police from grabbing jewelry, smartphones or 
anything else of value if officers have a need for new body armor.

"Asset forfeiture today, the way it exists federally, as well as in 
many states, is an institutional corruption," retired California 
Judge Jim Gray told Nick Sibilla of Forbes. "None of the (forfeiture) 
money should go to law enforcement. That provides them an 
inappropriate incentive." Sheriff Kilgore defends his department's 
approach, saying it's consistent with law enforcement tactics 
elsewhere. How comforting.

The lawsuits filed in Reno could take years to resolve, but what's 
happening in Humboldt County cries out for immediate intervention. 
The U.S. Justice Department should review the traffic stop and asset 
seizure practices of the sheriff's department. And the Nevada 
Legislature and Congress should reform asset forfeiture laws to 
prevent the taking of personal property until a defendant has been 
convicted of a crime.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom