Questionable Seizure: When A Marine Gets Money Seized Unjustly

In a recent viral video, Attorney Lord confronts a case that makes viewers question the validity of asset forfeiture laws. The video focuses on the confiscation of a marine’s $87,000, which was, in turn, handed over to the DEA. The marine gets his money seized, leaving spectators surprised.

From the beginning of this video, we can see the dialog between the officer and the Marine. The man, who is most likely the law enforcement officer, asks to check the Marine’s car. He goes by the instructions and confirms that he has nothing to conceal. However, it is very interesting that this interaction establishes the ground for future legal problems. This is because the Marine gets money seized on the side of the road.

During the search, the officer finds bags of money. The Marine pleads that the money belongs to him and his two daughters. Despite the man’s protests, the officer, finding the situation oddly aligned with standard bank bundling practices, seizes the cash.

Ugo Lord’s Legal Insight

Attorney Ugo Lord‘s take on the event offers a new perspective on the situation. It also highlights the complex nature of the issue in asset forfeiture laws. As seen in that video, his response adds depth to the debate by showing one of the key elements of asset forfeiture – a link to a crime.

A fresh glimpse into Stephen Lara’s background reveals a stark juxtaposition with his unfortunate confrontation with asset forfeiture. The Marine vet, esteemed for his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, regularly made cross-country trips to connect with his daughters in a little California town outside of Reno, Nevada. For reasons partially motivated by personal beliefs, Lara shunned traditional banking in favor of independently protecting his life savings.

On a recent trip, this practice led to an unforeseen standoff when Nevada Highway Patrol cited him for minor traffic proximity, which escalated into a profound search and the startling seizure of $87,000 in cash—an amount he meticulously documented as legal earnings.

He stresses that the money is packaged in harmony with normal banking procedures and rules. Moreover, having receipts shows another level of legal ownership of the cash. These factors, together, should have been very persuasive proof that the money wasn’t linked to any criminal activities. The law shouldn’t have allowed this marine to get his money seized.

Lord’s observation shows that the decision to confiscate the $87,000 did not meet the statutory criteria for asset forfeiture. Although taking an asset is normally legal, the law clearly says that the seized asset must relate to a crime with a suspect. Given there is no apparent evidence that shows the link between the seizure of the asset and his alleged crime, legal questions arise concerning the legality of asset seizure.

The Intricacies of Asset Forfeiture Laws

Considering California and Nevada laws regarding asset forfeiture, one can argue that this case might create controversy. These regulations make it possible to seize property like homes, boats, cars, and money when there is proof that they were used in criminal activity or taken in these ways. On the other hand, these laws also require the prosecution to prove the relationship of the assets to a crime before they can be attached, thereby placing the burden of proof on the government.

Asset forfeiture is a substantial legal tool used to penalize individuals for their alleged crimes and confiscate the so-called “tools” of their alleged criminal activity. However, this versatile tool has some limitations. The government must show the relation between the persons being investigated and criminal acts related to that through the preponderance of evidence. This standard of proof is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal cases.

The provisions for innocent owners also make the law more comprehensive in this regard. If people were really innocent of any crime, they could retain their assets. Unauthorized searches and seizures might be prosecuted. Law enforcement officers may be in trouble, and the assets may be returned.

The Case at Hand: Marine Gets Money Siezed – A Dubious Seizure

In a detailed analysis of the $87,000 seizure, it appears that one may be running into the wrongful application of asset forfeiture laws. Not only is the Marine arguing that the money is legally his, but also, there is no apparent connection to criminal behavior. Therefore, the confiscation of the cash seems inappropriate.

The officer’s own words, “Everything checks out,” strongly justify the seizure as dubious. This statement implies that there was no obvious motive to assume that the money was linked to anything illegal. It suggests there was no clear reason to suspect the money was connected to any criminal activity.

Additionally, the presence of receipts indicating legitimacy, combined with the officer’s admission, paints a picture of improper application of asset forfeiture laws. These elements collectively suggest that the seizure did not meet the law’s requirements.

A Wakeup Call

This video reminds us of asset forfeiture laws’ complexities and potential pitfalls. It underscores the importance of understanding these laws and the necessity of having probable cause before seizing assets. 

Fortunately, the marine received his $87,000 back several months later. Click here for a full update regarding this case.