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.

I have to admit that I view the police as the minions of the government, who pretty much always are violating my rights and assisting in taking my property. I really dont enjoy driving anymore with so many police running around looking to give out expensive tickets. I just stay away from them whenever I can.

Term2, in practice I couldn't agree more. It pains me to couch it in these terms, but apparently we need to watch out for the police just as we would watch out for any other thief. The infuriating thing is that cash is legal tender...it says so right on the face of the note. Absent any evidence of a crime, why must one worry? The answer of course is that if things worked like they were set up, there wouldn't be anything to worry about.

Do they still print travelers cheques any more?

Well-written and thoughtful rules. I'd vote for them. +10 if I could!

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.

We do have more Pronghorns in the summer than people in the state and they don't pay taxes, either. But I make sure when I carry a few hundred thousand on the roads of Wyoming, I only carry currency from Zimbabwe.

I guess the major part of the Wyoming population doesn't pay taxes because they are cows so the politicians grab monies where ever they can.

I delivered mail during the Christmas season in the mid sixties, as a college teenager. As I finished my route one day, my supervisor told me to get lost for a couple of hours because he had to estimate my hours and he had thought it would take longer. I got the message and my route became instantly longer each succeeding day. And $0.75 per hour was good money to me, I said to myself as I justified the cheating.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

Lol! +1

My brother worked for a government agency as an intern for a few months during college. He is very much an entrepreneur. He told me that even though he was only working about 12-16 hours a week, he could get done in that twelve what most would take 40 to complete. They kept telling him to slow down or he would make them look bad. He was soooooo glad to get out of there.

It leaves one to wonder if the civil servants ARE entrepreneurs!

You are correct, and that is the whole problem with the underlying presumption of civil forfeiture laws: they place the victim in a guilty-until-proven innocent stance contrary to the Fifth Amendment.

The other problem is that where there is an opportunity for profiteering, people are going to try to take advantage of the situation - whether they are entrepreneurs or civil servants. The Constitution was written to protect us from the second but the State Legislatures in many states are facilitating this behavior rather than curtailing it.

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 far too common. Unfortunately.