Maybe one of the attorneys around here can help sort this out for us.
1) Let's start with we as citizens are presumed innocent by Constitutional mandate.
2). If charged and found guilty, the law prescribes penalties commensurate with the particular crime and circumstances.
Sounds pretty straightforward and reasonable, no? Where then does the authority derive that the power-that-be can not only add on to the penalty, but can even impose these penalties EVEN IF NO VIOLATION OF LAW IS ALLEGED?

Look, I get it...the legislatures came up with these laws under the assumption that a drug dealer's Ferrari was bought with ill gotten gains. I'm not sure that that even holds water, that it can be seized 'just because'. This in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent...can they seize my house because I was living in it when I got that speeding ticket or took that stop sign? It seems a slippery slope my friends. I don't like the usual comparisons with the Nazis, but in this instance it seems appropriate. That or the caricature of the old Southern pot-bellied sheriff stealing everything in sight during a traffic stop.

This is just highway robbery, literally. It needs to stop. Its only a short hop from this to governments just invading peoples homes and looking for cash and valuables and just taking them. Wait till government is strapped for cash and they resort to this.

In the short run, its obvious that one should NOT carry valuables in their cars where they are subject to this sort of thing. Keep them stored at home in the bank of the back yard where they are hard to find. If they must be transported, its best to separate them into multiple trips to reduce the risk, and to do so in plain jane cars, not motor homes.

We should just change this law:
1. If guilty, never get it back (point of original rules)
2. If not guilty, get it back when trial is over +interest on liquid assets
3. If not prosecuted, get it back when charges dropped, +5% on all assets for inconvenience (keeps false charges from being drummed up to avoid.
4. If not charged, get it back immediately, +10% on all assets for inconvenience.
The negative side of this equation will curb inappropriate behavior.

This is far too common. Unfortunately.

I'm no legal eagle, but if this article is not a violation of the 4th Amendment I don't know what is.

I happen to really dislike the Nevada Highway Patrol. They are true pigs every time I have met up with them, and would vote to simply disband the agency immediately if I had the opportunity. I am ashamed to live in Nevada and be forced to pay to support them.

The problem is that there is no downside to the government continuing to pursue the case. When it loses, indicating that no crime was committed and that the person harmed was victimized the government should be forced to not just pay back the monies stolen and the attorney fees, but also penalties at least double the value of what was taken. Under those circumstances the risk might serve as a hindrance.

As “one of the attorneys” around here, you must stop thinking you actually have enforceable rights. The courts don’t care at best and are antagonistic if attempt to invoke rights with which the particular judge disagrees with. The unfortunate truth is, statistically, you are more likely to be killed by the police than a murderer, and more likely to lose your wealth to the government than to a thief. As a matter of fact, if you consider most of the taxes are taken from us to give to others as distinct from actually running the government, and the act most people do not suffer burglaries/robberies (at least not often) you have already lost more to government than criminals.

Dammit, this hits home a little too close. I live just outside of Elko, NV. It has been known that Elko is a major speed trap because I-80 is such a long haul through "butt ugly" empty deserts, people get lead foot, and then they drop the limit to 65 on the Interstate just because it is passing by the Elko exits. But I have not heard of these practices happening yet.

It has been known with a famous series of cases involving an officer over around Winnemucca. He has been under critical investigation and suspension because of this.

This is disturbing to hear around Elko. It is a remote smaller town, the sheriffs are well known, but it does have this major, major cross country Interstate going through.

Outrageous. But people have come to think
the government's purpose to be some kind of
great parent to look after us, provide our living, and
tell and teach us what to do, instead of simply to
protect man from force and violence, and punish
same. So, when some excuse can be made up
that its actions fall somehow into the scope of
parental duties, people (or some people) are dis-
posed to let it get away with it. I guess that is
how these situations come about.

It's ASII when Hank Reardon tells the government official that he's going to have to choose which side he's on.. Even then, he doesn't realize which side he's on.

Just an FYI, the Governor of Wyoming, Matt (the Rat) Mead and a lot of members of the Wyoming State Senate support this crime against due process. http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2...

tell were his property rights violated by a representative of the government i.e. the police, of course. to my point that we really no longer have property rights!