Judge orders return of $167K seized from motorist, says federal prosecutors didn't tell whole story
A federal judge in Nevada has ordered the government to return $167,000 seized from a slow-driving motorist in an opinion that chastised federal prosecutors for failing to disclose the driver had been subjected to two traffic stops only 50 minutes apart.
U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks said in his June 12 decision (PDF) that the court relies on the U.S. Attorney’s office to be “candid and forthcoming” with material information, and that didn’t occur in the case of motorist Straughn Gorman, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
Gorman had refused to allow an officer to search his motor home during the first traffic stop in January 2013, in which the officer said Gorman had been driving too slow in the fast lane. Gorman had also objected to a canine search when he was stopped by the second officer. Police allowed the dog to sniff the vehicle anyway. The dog alerted and police called to obtain a search warrant. The police found cash in the motor home but no drugs. Gorman was not charged with a crime, but his money was seized for civil forfeiture proceedings.
The first officer had informed the Nevada Highway Patrol after the first stop that he suspected Gorman was carrying large amounts of currency and the only way to get a probable cause search would be use of a canine unit. The highway patrol then alerted the second officer to stop Gorman when he passed. Prosecutors didn’t mention the first stop and the officer’s recommendation in their motion for summary judgment or in supporting affidavits, Hicks said.
Gorman was detained for 35 minutes during the traffic stops before the dog sniff, an amount of time that was unreasonable, Hicks said. In addition, the prolongation of the second stop was not supported by independent reasonable suspicion, the judge said.
The next section of Hicks’ opinion is labeled “Omissions by the United States Attorney—Half of the Story.”
“The court is disappointed,” Hicks wrote, “that the United States would aggressively pursue this forfeiture action” when its motion for summary judgment and supporting affidavits made no disclosure that the second stop was a follow-up to the first.
U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden told the Review-Journal that his office is considering an appeal.
See also:
ABAJournal.com: “Holder announces curbs on forfeiture sharing program; what impact will they have?”
ABAJournal.com: “New Mexico law ends civil forfeiture, bolsters innocent owner defense in criminal cases”
ABAJournal.com: “Civil rights group sues Philly DA, says illegal civil forfeiture ‘machine’ helps fund office”
Wrong word in fifth paragraph corrected on June 29.
