Lawsuit alleges Nev. deputy illegally seized cash
By Scott Sonner, AP
A rural Nevada sheriff’s deputy is accused of stopping travelers on a lonely stretch of Interstate 80 and confiscating tens of thousands of dollars for the county without bringing charges, according to two federal lawsuits.
Two men who were traveling alone through Northern Nevada’s high desert last year offer strikingly similar accounts of their stops by the same Humboldt County deputy near the town of Winnemucca, about 165 miles east of Reno.
Neither search produced drugs or an arrest, but in one case the deputy took a briefcase filled with $50,000 and in the other he seized $13,800 and a .40-caliber Ruger handgun, according to the lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Reno.
Both men said they were told they’d be released with their vehicles only if they forfeited their cash.
“It’s like Jesse James or Black Bart,” said John Ohlson, a longtime Reno defense lawyer who filed suit on Jan. 16 on behalf of Tan Nguyen, 37, of Newport.
The lawsuits say the cash seizures are part of a pattern of stopping drivers for speeding as a pretext for drug busts, which violation the Constitution. They maintain Sheriff Ed Kilgore, Deputy Lee Dove, Humboldt County and its prosecutors condone the practice of seizing assets regardless of criminal prosecution.
Two Reno lawyers representing the county did not immediately respond to telephone or email messages seeking comment, nor did Kilgore or Dove.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Kevin Pasquale said the district attorney’s office would not discuss the lawsuits. “As a matter of policy, we never comment on pending litigation,” he told the Associated Press.
County officials were not shy in the past about discussing their cash seizures. The day after Nguyen had his money taken, the sheriff issued a news release with a photograph of Dove pictured with a K-9 and $50,000 in seized cash “after a traffic stop for speeding.”
“This cash would have been used to purchase illegal drugs and now will benefit Humboldt County with training and equipment. Great job,” the statement said. Dove’s report said he had the money counted at a Winnemucca bank, then gave it to the district attorney’s office “for asset/seizure/forfeiture.”
Nguyen’s suit says Dove stopped him Sept. 23 for driving 78 mph in a 75 zone in what his lawyers described as a “profile stop” based on suspicion he was transporting drugs in a rental car picked up at the Denver airport.
Dove wrote in his report Nguyen agreed to a search before opening the briefcase with the $50,000 in cash. Nguyen denies that he consented.
Nguyen told Dove he won the money at a casino on the way to visit his cousins in California, according to Dove’s report, but Dove told Nguyen he suspected the money was obtained illegally. Dove reported he smelled marijuana but didn’t find any.
Nguyen was given a written warning for speeding but wasn’t cited.
As a condition of release, Nguyen signed a “property for safekeeping receipt,” which indicated the money was abandoned or seized and not returnable. But the lawsuit says he did so only because Dove threatened to seize his vehicle unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.”
There’s an increasing trend towards confiscation of money or property by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. This is a robbery, and the law officers should do serious prison time.
A robbery is when money or property is taken unlawfully through use of force or through use of threat. The difference between robbery and plain theft, is that a theft does not include force or threat. In a plain theft, money or property is just taken, without there being any implied threat or danger to the victim.
Here, there has been a clear threat of false imprisonment, should these victims not surrender their money.
The FBI should be making arrests immediately. But, because these are law enforcement officers, the FBI will falsely claim this is only a civil matter. This is no less serious than a bank robbery. Don’t be fooled by the government propaganda that will downplay the seriousness of this crime.
In the late 1980’s I participated in some of the first escrows in the country that conveyed seized real estate to private buyers.
Disgusting people, I would shower when I got home to try and get rid the feeling these people gave me.
People would be shocked if they knew how many transactions they subpoenaed trying to find or create a crime. My company had to hire a part time employee just to copy the subpoenaed files. They finally went away in the early 1990’s. (I hope) The subpoenas always had a gag order attached to them.
Mr. Nguyen’s story is about as believable as Peter Pan.
Rented car, long drive from Denver to wherever, 50,000.00 cash, and no evidence like a IRS form he should have filled out when collecting his winnings.
The whole thing seems more like fiction.
To bad we will never know the truth, but I am leaning toward the sheriff’s version.
Some transactions actually require cash payment. Private car sellers often require cash, and many auctions only accept cash payment.
The fact that there was a large amount of cash in the plaintiff’s possession doesn’t show cause for the police to seize it.
According to the police claims, a robbery was committed. They were the robbers.
I think it’s very strange that after I explain the law very clearly to some people, they insist on supporting people who have obviously committed a crime. The lawyer representing the plaintiffs have obtained admissions of guilt from the defendants. Notice that afterwards the victim was allowed to drive away to freedom, without the money. This would not have happened if the police had cause to suspect a drug deal. These police did not attempt to prove any illegal activity. The circumstances prove the police wanted the money.