ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck driver whose money was seized
Posted on September 2nd, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 4th Amendment, ACLU, bank, DEA, El Paso, fractional-reserve banking system, freedom, highway, Houston Chronicle, law-abiding individual, liberty, New Mexico, police state, politics, privacy, road, Texas, your money, your rightshttp://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/…
http://www.freenewmexican.com/…
Anastasio Prieto, a truck driver from El Paso, Texas, doesn’t trust banks and prefers to carry his savings with him in cash. While this is a dangerous way to manage one’s money, a cursory glance at recent headlines tends to validate Prieto’s concerns about the stability of the fractional-reserve banking system.
During a stop at a weigh station in New Mexico on August 8, Prieto made a critical mistake: He cooperated with the police, assuming that as a law-abiding individual he had nothing to fear from them.
A New Mexico state trooper asked Prieto for permission to search his truck for contraband, such as needles or cash in excess of $10,000. Displaying an ingenuousness that breaks my heart, the truck driver consented, informing the officer that he was carrying nothing illegal — but admitting that he had $23,700 on board.
The police “forfeited” — that is, stole — Prieto’s savings. The DEA agents who presided over the theft “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,” reported the Houston Chronicle.
How terribly disgusting. How exactly does one prove $X in cash is theirs and not made through illegal means? Does anyone keep track of the serial numbers of their cash? I doubt his bank did when they cashed his checks. I’ll be surprised if this guy gets his life savings back. Unless the ACLU can shame the government into doing so. Never volunteer your property to be searched. It can only increase the chances of you losing something.
5 Responses to “ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck driver whose money was seized”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
The police are saddled with an impossible job of stopping the flow of illegal drugs AND drug money. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who have over $10,000 cash on them are involved with something illegal (no source as I couldn’t find anyone doing a study on this). Typically the most accessible illegal activity that brings in the cash is trafficking drugs. the fact that he’s a mexican truck driver makes it especially suspicious.
Assuming he is innocent, one would hope that he gets his money back, with interest and the ACLU gets paid for defending him. Unfortunately the only way for the police to even begin to fight drugs is to infringe on individual rights.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
They are assuming him guilty and requiring him to prove his innocence. That goes completely against “innocent till proven guilty” aspect of our judicial system. You are asking to prove a negative which ultimately isn’t possible.
What about the 5th Amendment?
I’ve known plenty of people who kept large sums of money on them because they didn’t trust banks. Because of the Federal Reserve and our fiet money supply it’s not smart as the government simply sucks the worth of that money away from you… but people still do it. Especially trucker types who are always on the road.
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Yes
Before we get to far into this, realize that the premise is flawed. You can’t prohibit drugs without removing peoples rights. Who’s to blame, the legistlative branch that made the laws the the executive who’s trying to enforce them?
Oh and also I was thinking about whether or not this guy should get interest if the government gives him his money back. Since it wasn’t invested you would need some other way to determine the time value of his money.
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Both can be blamed. But that’s not what’s at question here. No drugs were found. Nothing to warrant depriving him of “life, liberty, or property.” They have taken his money and are requiring him to prove it’s his. It’s not possible and against the Constitution. You argue a positivist POV yet seem to ignore the Constitution which is the highest law of the land.
Interest? Does the IRS give you interest on the money they’ve been sitting on? Nope. Should they? Sure. Will they ever? No.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I hope the police officer carries around the receipts for his shiny shoes, cos you know, without proof I might believe that he had stolen them.