Matt Zapotosky, The Washington Post
Sep. 1, 2021
A former Marine was pulled over for following a truck too closely. Police took nearly $87,000 of his cash.
Lara - a former Marine who says he was on his way to visit his daughters in Northern California - insisted he was doing none of those things, though he readily admitted he had "a lot" of cash in his car. As he stood on the side of the road, police searched the vehicle, pulling nearly $87,000 in a zip-top bag from Lara's trunk and insisting a drug-sniffing dog had detected something on the cash.
Police found no drugs, and Lara, 39, was charged with no crimes. But police nonetheless left with his money, calling a Drug Enforcement Administration agent to coordinate a process known as "adoption," which allows federal authorities to seize cash or property they suspect is connected to criminal activity without levying criminal charges.
"I left there confused. I left there angry," Lara said in an interview with The Washington Post. "And I could not believe that I had just been literally robbed on the side of the road by people with badges and guns."
It was only after Lara got a lawyer, sued and talked with The Washington Post about his ordeal that the government said it would return his money. Asked for comment on this story on Tuesday, spokespeople for the Justice Department, DEA and Nevada Highway Patrol all declined to comment. But on Wednesday, after this story first published, DEA spokeswoman Anne Edgecomb said the agency had made a decision to return Lara's money and the government vowed a broader review.
"The Justice Department is reviewing existing policy on adoptive forfeitures," spokesman Joshua Stueve said in a statement.
Lara and his representatives concede some of his actions could raise questions. But advocates say the case is an example of how the federal government abuses its asset forfeiture authority, putting the burden on those whose property is taken to prove their innocence to get it back.
The "adoption" maneuver is particularly controversial, they say, because it involves federal law enforcement using its power to encourage a seizure by state police. Much of the forfeited property ultimately goes back to the state agency if it's not returned to the original owner, and advocates say many owners don't have the means or sophistication to get their items back.
Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken any action on asset forfeiture.
"This is an inherently abusive power that state and local law enforcement should not have," said Wesley Hottot, a lawyer representing Lara with the Institute for Justice, which advocates against civil asset forfeiture. "What we see almost exclusively are people like Stephen who - perhaps had quirky banking practices - but they're not guilty of any crime. And yet, in the nation's airports, on the nation's roads, they're treated by police as though a large amount of cash by itself is criminal. And that power is too dangerous to give every police officer on the street."
https://www.chron.com/news/article/A-former-Marine-was-pulled-over-for-following-a-16427794.php