Guilty Until Proven Innocent
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...
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."
Comments (25)
George Gaskell
"The government took Mr. Prieto's money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night,"
I know the feeling. I feel the same way with every paycheck.
Published: August 24, 2007 9:42 PM
Jaq Phule
Prieto has a dire and critical threat to the sum and total of his economic existence. If income tax withholding is the worst form of government confiscation you have experienced, I don't think you actually do feel the same way, George.
You know the next paycheck is coming in a few weeks. Prieto lives from the income derived from his truck. If his savings are wiped out, in this manner for which he could not possibly have predicted, what is he to do?
I understand pithy humor, but please don't trivialize the enormity of Prieto's problem.
Published: August 24, 2007 10:49 PM
darjen
Word to the wise: don't give them permission to search you. Ever. And don't voluntarily give them any information. Even if they just ask where you are going.
Published: August 24, 2007 10:54 PM
Carl
Prieto is the victim of a terrible crime. Theft is wrong in any form. Consider that the government's role is to administer justice and protect rights, but now has become the author of the injustice it is suppose to oppose, and it makes the crime more heinous. However the title "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" holds a half truth. If a man commits a crime and he is never proven guilty he is not innocent. The crime was commited by him. His guilt or innocence is determined by his actions not that he managed to escape govenment punishment. The government should not make innocent men guilty and it should not make guilty men innocent. Both are terrible. Hopefully Prieto's belongings are restored to him promptly but it seems the government will not be stopped from doing this again.
Published: August 25, 2007 2:29 AM
Mrhuh
"The government took Mr. Prieto's money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night,"
The fact that the ACLU, a company founded by avowed communists, is making this claim is at least one step in the right direction.
Published: August 25, 2007 2:41 AM
David C
"Word to the wise: don't give them permission to search you. Ever. And don't voluntarily give them any information. Even if they just ask where you are going."
My understanding is that the DOT requires commercial truck drivers to wave their right to unreasonable search and seizure - or they won't issue a license. They also require truckers to log what they are doing every half hour, when they sleep, where they stop, to submit to random testing, and so on.
Published: August 25, 2007 11:53 AM
George Gaskell
I understand pithy humor, but please don't trivialize the enormity of Prieto's problem.
I'm not sure that you do.
In any event, I am not trivializing anything. I fully recognize that this particular act of theft may be perceived as more serious by Mr. Prieto than the bimonthly theft that I experience, in the sense that it leaves him in more acute financial distress than when I am routinely robbed.
But that does not mean that the crime against him is worse than the crime against me. The crime of theft is not more severe because its owner has a higher marginal utility for the stolen property. I have been practicing law for a while, much of that time in constitutional criminal matters, and I have yet to come across that sort of legal principle.
Instead, the severity of the crime is measured objectively -- more dollars stolen is a more severe crime. I have had considerably more than $23,700 stolen from me over the last few months by the same organization that robbed Mr. Prieto. (Incidentally, I have considerably less than $23,700 in cash savings at the moment, largely due to the routine theft of my money by said organization!)
You may have more sympathy for a poorer theft victim compared to a richer one, but that is not the basis of law. I dare say that the idea that stealing from a wealthier person is somehow less morally objectionable than stealing from a poorer person is one of the fundamentally erroneous ideas that gave us the income tax in the first place.
Published: August 25, 2007 12:42 PM
And the best part is....
I feel sorry for the poor truck driver. He was totally screwed by his government. I wonder if Bush feels sorry for him. I don't think that his daughter caught a 24K fine for underage drinking? (That should not be the law anyway.)
Focus: My point is that in the end this whole mess from inspection to paper processing to hearings to court has cost the US a lot more than 24K. Law enforcement is the second most expensive way to control behavior next to the military performing the task. I think it is funny but hardly suprising or uncommon that the Government would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and push real violent criminal cases from dockets to pursue the confiscation of 24K.
Published: August 25, 2007 12:44 PM
Keith
When Congress passed these property forfeiture laws, all illusion of property rights disappeared. These laws are the main reason while you'll never see the "war on drugs" ended.
Published: August 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Jim
The sad fact is that after reading this most neocons will still believe two things: Government only violates the rights of the guilty (so, do not fear the Patriot Act since you have nothing to hide); therefore, Prieto is inherently guilty of some offense, since government would not have done such to an innocent man.
Ever wonder how neocons fall asleep at night with the belief that government protects them: They live lives of self-delusion!
Published: August 25, 2007 3:03 PM
M.J. Taylor, from Reason to Freedom
Repeat after me:
“You can do whatever you want, but I do not give you permission to do anything.”
If you're truly paranoid, print half a dozen copies with Date and “Received by:” signature blocks. Not that it will help at the side of the road, but it might make your resultant lawsuit easier...
Regards,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
Published: August 25, 2007 5:20 PM
ivan
thanks
Published: August 25, 2007 7:28 PM
Darren
"However the title "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" holds a half truth. If a man commits a crime and he is never proven guilty he is not innocent."
The statement refers to the American tradition of the presumption of innocence--presumed innocent until proven guilty. The title is showing that this man was presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Published: August 26, 2007 1:30 AM
Carl
"in constitutional criminal matters...the crime of theft is not more severe because its owner has a higher marginal utility for the stolen property."
I can accept that this premise is what we use in America so let me use it to point to the fact that there is a better premise. According to what we can discover in the Bible a different picture of criminal justice is painted. Though theft is always wrong ,including legal plunder, it has varying degrees of punishment according to the circumstances and actions of the thief. A few quick examples include sentimental attachment, stealing food to eat. returning the belongings before the authoritys catch you and the punishments include restitution from half the value of the stolen goods all the way up to 12xs the value with corporal punishment at the discretion of the appointed judge.
Published: August 26, 2007 5:30 AM
Brenda Staerker_lewis
My es- and i drove truck for many years- he is still an owner operator- there are many "TRUCKING" publications that have articles related to the search and seziure. Many Truck drivers utilize their cabs as their homes- therfore, an officer needs to aquire a search warrent to search said home. They also need probabale cause- Thsi driver should not have allowed the search- he should also be able to obtain documentation that the money was obtained legally- example- pay advances from his company for food, fuel, tolls, hotels, his pay- we used to make $1500.00/week take home (we had to do our own taxes etc. so it really wasn't as much as it appears...)- this means pay stubs- broker sheets, etc. Thsi should all be easily obtained- and the companies etc. will be more then willing to assist because they would not wish this to happen to them, their families or drivers... If the money was in the truck because he doesn't trust banks-ok, but if its there fo other reasons....well, it will be harder to document...
Published: August 26, 2007 7:27 AM
Matt Robare
It is impossible to prove a negative. The government is basically saying that Mr Prieto will never get his money back. If the State gave a crap about justice it would be up to them to prove him guilty, but they can't and they wouldn't, anyways.
Published: August 26, 2007 12:47 PM
Yancey Ward
Matt is basically correct. The standard that will suffice as proof is so high, that the claim that "I keep my savings as cash" will fail. Short of proof that he obtained this money in less than 5 transactions via a bank, he is basically out of luck.
This tells you what kind of society we have become.
Published: August 26, 2007 8:00 PM
Dave
If I were him, I would either get my money back or create 24,000 dollars worth of damage to their lives.
Yup, and then go to jail.
Let them feed and house me.
Published: August 27, 2007 7:53 AM
Brad
It seems that circumstances such as these come about due to the confluence of many Statist decisions, The War on Drugs, the requirement that if one is running a business they must have a bank account so as to be trackable, privacy issues, etc etc. And all "logically" dovetail once reality is tossed out the window.
So, perhaps redirecting too much, I can't wait for Socialist Healthcare. Soon the possession of a twinkie will be a crime against The Body and a calculated blow to its treasury, subjecting the perpetator to all sorts of indignities. And, again, guilt is presupposed by the masses. I am not being funny here.
And as far as George's pithiness, what is worse, having the State function come to its logical end of its anti-individualist stance, and come down to force against force, or have it continue to exist as a parasite, leaching until the host is dead? Sometimes I wish we would get on with the logic of the State to its ultimate endpoint so we can finally settle it. Existing in a Socialist Body that is called anything but that (it's Capitalism I'm told), as 100% of my labor is either confiscated or promised to someone else down the road, perhaps a dollop rationed back to me, is merely a slow death that very few others even seem to be aware of. Perhaps if more Prieto's were thrust out into the open people would wake the hell up.
Published: August 27, 2007 11:33 AM
Craig
I guess I would recommend that for the time being, a person be prudent enough to "pick his battles." I understand the downhill slope we find ourselve on as it relates to a government that tends to make up the rules as they go along. But, the bottom line is this: the guy is out 24,000 dollars. He may likely never see it again. He would have done himself a huge favor by simmply not having that cash on him, in the form of cash. I totally understand that he should be able to have it, but in the face of the facts we have here, he'd have been far better off to have it in a bank account somewhere. If there was some "reason" he could "not" have put it into a bank, like most people do, then I am going to guess there was some "reason" why. I'm not defending illegal search and seizure, but for god sakes, this matter is just stupid on both accounts. Stupid for having had his money taken, and stupid for having 24,000 in cash, in his truck.
I don't like the way the government is acting, but I'm not about to make it a 24,000 dollar lesson for me either. Put your money in the bank, and this becomes a non-issue. In other words, fight the battle before it gets to your doorstep. Just seems like a pretty stupid thing to do in the face of what is happening.
Published: August 27, 2007 12:08 PM
M.J. Taylor, from Reason to Freedom
Hi Craig,
Most any society needs its Rosa Parks. I feel sorry for this guy, but like you I wouldn't keep cash around just so some government goon can take it.
Unfortunately, the collectivistic ACLU seems to be the only group stepping up to right these wrongs. But they really don't do enough for the amount of resources they consume. If they would start massively filing civil suits against individuals, we might have less statism.
# # #
Justin,
I added this to our Good Blog page.
Good Fighting All,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
- - -
Writer? Pissed? Want to do something about it?
Published: August 27, 2007 1:11 PM
sean
just because the man doesnt like to trust his money to people he doesnt know, doesnt mean hes dealing drugs. he may have trust issues, or may liek to have his money on hand instead of constantly going out of his way to go to a bank just to be able to buy lunch. He has a right to do what he wishes with his own money.
Published: August 28, 2007 2:13 PM
Greg
This is happening all over it's not an isolated case!
Something has to be done to stop them.
Published: August 28, 2007 8:28 PM
blair
If he kept his money in a bank the government would not have had to take it on the side of the road because they would of already had it. What you fail to realize is a bank account is not opened under your true and legal name, which is your name written with the first letter capitalized followed by lowercase letters, but instead it is opened as a legal fiction which is your name spelled in all capital letters. Any money you have in a bank account, real estate, stocks or bonds is not yours they can take it at anytime like it or not. Don't believe me look it up in blacks law dictionary.
Published: August 29, 2007 7:25 AM
Traveller
I recently moved all the way across the United States by car. Of course, there was no way I was going to trust the moving company or anyone else to move my bullion stash, nor my firearm. So those things went into the car along with our family photos. I was very careful while driving because I understood if we were ever pulled over and our car was searched, the police would surely steal our property. Gold and guns! I must be doing something illegal! Always careful to avoid undue risks, the police were my prime concern.
Published: August 29, 2007 9:36 AM