Dear John,

We’ve been bogged down with snow and ice this week at IJ-HQ, but at the close of this frozen week here we have some outstanding news to share about our civil forfeiture work from sunny Nevada!

As you might recall, we represent Marine veteran Stephen Lara, who was driving to visit his daughters in California when the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) pulled him over and seized his entire life savings—despite never alleging he’d done anything illegal. A day after our video ([link removed] ) on the case went viral and Stephen's story landed on the front page of The Washington Post, the government agreed to return his money. But our case against Nevada’s forfeiture scheme continued.

One of the major challenges with trying to change civil forfeiture laws is that even if a state reforms its own laws (as Nevada had done), state law enforcement agencies often do an end-run around those changes and instead turn to the federal “equitable sharing” program, which lets them give the forfeiture to a federal agency in exchange for a kickback of part of the money. But a court today in Nevada slammed that loophole door shut.

The court ruled that it is ultra vires (a fancy Latin term for when government acts without legal authority) for state law enforcement to circumvent state forfeiture law by using federal equitable sharing.  Here’s the kicker of the court’s conclusion:

While federal law clearly provides Nevada the option to participate in the federal equitable sharing program, Nevada’s Legislature has yet to accept this offer. Without such an acceptance, NHP is unable to participate in this program—as doing so effectively requires NHP to eschew Nevada’s delineated forfeiture scheme. NHP is required to utilize the appropriate means, Nevada’s forfeiture scheme, to reach its desired ends. 

In other words, state law enforcement must follow state law (what a concept!). Even better, the court granted broad relief, ordering that Nevada law enforcement “is hereby enjoined from participating in the federal equitable sharing program…”

Given that participation in the equitable sharing program is such a cash cow for law enforcement in Nevada, we wouldn’t be surprised if the state goes directly to the Nevada Supreme Court to try to overturn this result. Needless to say, IJ will be there defend this victory and then to build upon it in other states that routinely evade state law to launder property through the federal program. (We also have other claims we’re pursuing in the case, including a damages claim for Stephen.)

We will keep you posted on next steps in the case.

Scott

Scott G. Bullock

President and Chief Counsel

Institute for Justice

Donate Today ([link removed] )

Institute for Justice, 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, Virginia 22203

Unsubscribe ([link removed] )
Manage preferences ([link removed] )