PDA

View Full Version : Watching Liberty evaporate before our very eyes...


Taco John
08-24-2007, 05:02 PM
ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck whose money was seized

Aug. 24, 2007, 1:02PM

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A trucker has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking to get back nearly $24,000 seized by DEA agents earlier this month at a weigh station on U.S. 54 in New Mexico north of El Paso, Texas.

Anastasio Prieto of El Paso gave a state police officer at the weigh station permission to search the truck to see if it contained "needles or cash in excess of $10,000," according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the federal lawsuit Thursday.

Prieto told the officer he didn't have any needles but did have $23,700.

Officers took the money and turned it over to the DEA. DEA agents photographed and fingerprinted Prieto over his objections, then released him without charging him with anything.

Border Patrol agents searched his truck with drug-sniffing dogs, but found no evidence of illegal substances, the ACLU said.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Prieto's right to be free of unlawful search and seizure by taking his money without probable cause and by fingerprinting and photographing him.

"Mere possession of approximately $23,700 does not establish probable cause for a search or seizure," the lawsuit said.

It said Prieto pulled into the weigh station about 10:30 a.m. Aug. 8 and was let go about 4 p.m.

DEA agents told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he'd have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales.

They told him the process probably would take a year, the ACLU said.

The ACLU's New Mexico executive director, Peter Simonson, said Prieto needs his money now to pay bills and maintain his truck. The lawsuit said Prieto does not like banks and customarily carries his savings as cash.

"The government took Mr. Prieto's money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night," Simonson said. "In fact, being robbed might have been better. At least then the police would have treated him as the victim of a crime instead of as a perpetrator."

The DEA did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

Peter Olson, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, which oversees state police, said he could not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit names DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy, DEA task force officer Gary T. Apodaca, DEA agent Joseph Montoya and three state police officers identified only as John or Jane Doe.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5081398.html

Adept Havelock
08-24-2007, 05:07 PM
Another glorious victory in the unending war on drugs.

Allowing LEA's to keep the proceeds from drug seizures has led to this level of brazeness. He has to prove his money is legitimate? Utter and complete bullshit.

It certainly seems "Innocent until proven guilty" is fast becoming a memory.

Letting the DEA or local PD keep seized funds is almost as brilliant an idea as tax farming. :shake:

Taco John
08-24-2007, 05:13 PM
It just blows my mind that this can even happen in America. I can't understand how it got to this point. This guy might be shady as hell, who knows? But that doesn't change the fact that we're reversing the traditions that our forefathers established, and going on a course where government dictates using passion and fear, rather than arbitrates based on our foundational principles.

Jenson71
08-24-2007, 05:15 PM
It just blows my mind that this can even happen in America. I can't understand how it got to this point. This guy might be shady as hell, who knows? But that doesn't change the fact that we're reversing the traditions that our forefathers established, and going on a course where government dictates using passion and fear, rather than arbitrates based on our foundational principles.

Hey man, don't act shady and you'll be fine.

Adept Havelock
08-24-2007, 05:19 PM
Hey man, don't act shady and you'll be fine.


Yeah, screw our legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty. It just gets in the way of the government digging even deeper into your pocket.

This is nothing more than a variation on Roman tax farming, with the exact same problems.

If the guys shady, fine. Build a case and prosecute him. Outright seizure where the burden is on the accused is pure bullshit. Running LEA's as a for-profit agency is about as bad an idea as there is.

IMO, it's just more proof the number one role of the war on drugs is making sure the DEA, the private prison industry, and their hanger-ons get massive funding. Ignoring the fact they haven't had much success in the 35 years of this nonsense. It didn't take us nearly that long to figure out the 18th Amendment and the Volstead act were completely inane. Our governments approach to prohibition (alcohol or narcotics) certainly fits the apocryphal definition of insanity.

patteeu
08-24-2007, 06:18 PM
I agree with all the outrage expressed in this thread but the idea that this is new (watching Liberty evaporate before our very eyes) is off base. This particular liberty has been gone for quite some time. But it's good to see that people are catching on. It's definitely the kind of eye-opening article that people should see in case they don't realize the problem exists.

ChiefaRoo
08-24-2007, 07:43 PM
(Assuming this story is correct and factual) I say give the guy his money back right now.

ChiefaRoo
08-24-2007, 07:49 PM
Yeah, screw our legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty. It just gets in the way of the government digging even deeper into your pocket.

This is nothing more than a variation on Roman tax farming, with the exact same problems.

If the guys shady, fine. Build a case and prosecute him. Outright seizure where the burden is on the accused is pure bullshit. Running LEA's as a for-profit agency is about as bad an idea as there is.

IMO, it's just more proof the number one role of the war on drugs is making sure the DEA, the private prison industry, and their hanger-ons get massive funding. Ignoring the fact they haven't had much success in the 35 years of this nonsense. It didn't take us nearly that long to figure out the 18th Amendment and the Volstead act were completely inane. Our governments approach to prohibition (alcohol or narcotics) certainly fits the apocryphal definition of insanity.


"This is nothing more than a variation on Roman tax farming, with the exact same problems."

Digging pretty deep into the historical reference bag there pointy head. :)

StcChief
08-24-2007, 08:00 PM
so caring that much cash around why?

Logical
08-24-2007, 08:09 PM
(Assuming this story is correct and factual) I say give the guy his money back right now.

Amem, truthfully even if he got the money illegally it is not his responsibilty to prove he did not. It would have been the governments responsibility to prove it was an illegal deal that netted the cash.

Not smart carrying around that much cash though.

Taco John
08-24-2007, 08:10 PM
It's not my business, so I don't know...

Adam
08-24-2007, 10:18 PM
Not smart carrying around that much cash though.

Yeah, some armed thugs might pull you over and steal it from you at the point of a gun.

the Talking Can
08-24-2007, 10:54 PM
so caring that much cash around why?

yes, he must be guilty of something....you know what they say, "Guilty until proven innocent....but ****ed either way"

Pitt Gorilla
08-25-2007, 01:45 AM
so caring that much cash around why?
Because he can?

ChiefaRoo
08-25-2007, 02:09 AM
so caring that much cash around why?

It's no ones business why he was carrying around that much money. He could walk around with his life savings in a sock if he wants to. This story pisses me off.

ClevelandBronco
08-25-2007, 02:37 AM
Because he can?

Well, it looks like he can't. Not unless he wants to risk losing it.

However, I don't support the law (or the directive, or whatever the hell it is) that allowed our government to confiscate this man's cash without proof of wrongdoing.

I'm sure the Democratic Congress will take care of this.

Yeah. Right.

Taco John
08-25-2007, 02:49 AM
I'm not sure that this is a congressional matter. Seem this should fall somewhere between the judicial system and the Executive Branch. What's congress going to do? Pass laws that say the government can't operate outside the constitution?

Bob Dole
08-25-2007, 03:44 AM
so caring that much cash around why?

Just to piss you off.

But seriously...who the hell should care? Was it harming someone else?

Ultra Peanut
08-25-2007, 03:56 AM
DRUGS ARE EVIL THANK YOU DEA

I'm sure the Democratic Congress will take care of this.Yeah, everything bad that happens is totally the Dems' fault and that's why we should vote Republican in 2008 because they will fix things. Before the 2006 election, the DEA wasn't doing any of this stuff.