COMMENTARY: Bring Nevada police seizures into the light

Law enforcement agencies cannot hide what happened to Marine veteran Stephen Lara on Feb. 19, 2021. Bodycam video from the Nevada Highway Patrol has generated more than 9 million views and dozens of articles.

The facts are well-established: The police stopped Lara near Reno, searched his vehicle and took his life savings — nearly $87,000 stored in a backpack with three years’ worth of bank receipts. Working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the Highway Patrol then attempted civil forfeiture.

This law enforcement maneuver, which generated nearly $86 million in Nevada during the 20-year span from 2000 to 2019, allows the government to seize and keep assets linked to criminal activity. Participating agencies then can split up to 100 percent of the proceeds among themselves.

The problem is Lara did nothing wrong. His money came from honest labor, and carrying cash is not a crime. Officers did not arrest or cite him, and prosecutors never filed charges. Yet the government attempted to keep Lara’s life savings anyway, and returned it only after he fought back in court with representation from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice.

The disregard for property rights looks bad. But law enforcement agencies can counter with stories of their own, showing civil forfeiture as an effective crime-fighting tool. The 2022 arrest of Triston Steinman serves this purpose well. Nevada state police pulled Steinman over on U.S. Highway 93, searched his vehicle and found marijuana, weapons and $125,000 in cash.

A news release trumpets the drug bust as a win for civil forfeiture. Yet no one knows how many Nevada cases look more like Lara’s, and how many look more like Steinman’s.

A 2015 reform requires Nevada law enforcement agencies to report forfeiture activity, which the attorney general’s office aggregates and publishes online. Yet key details are missing from these reports, such as charges filed against property owners, if any. Lumping multiple cases together also prevents scrutiny of individual actions.

The result is dueling anecdotes, allowing people on both sides of the debate to confirm their biases. Law enforcement advocates can dismiss Lara’s case as an anomaly while claiming Steinman’s case as the rule. Property rights advocates can make the same arguments in reverse.

Political divides widen the gap, allowing partisans to talk past each other. If “my side” makes a mistake, it is anecdotal evidence that proves nothing. But if “your side” makes a mistake, it shows systemic failings that require major overhauls.

Some people prefer this arrangement. “The process works very well as it is,” Metropolitan Police Department attorney Matthew Christian told state lawmakers during a 2021 hearing on civil forfeiture reform that ultimately went nowhere. Similar testimony helped kill forfeiture reforms in 2017 and 2019.

Adam Page of the Nevada Highway Patrol tells people to trust the police. “We’re not out there trying to find money to fund ourselves,” he says.

Civil forfeiture opponents prefer transparency. The reason is simple: The more people know about civil forfeiture, the less they like it. Democrats, Republicans and independents all react with disbelief when they discover how the process works.

Property owners can lose assets without arrest or prosecution. They have no right to counsel. They must pay for their own defense in civil court. They must prove their own innocence. And they must navigate complex rules to see a judge, which is not guaranteed.

Weak reporting laws allow the process to unfold out of the public eye. Despite assurances of propriety from police and prosecutors, this is a problem. Centuries of history teach that transparency works best to keep public officials accountable.

Assembly Bill 350 would help bring civil forfeiture into the light. The measure, which the Assembly passed unanimously on April 14 and sent to the Senate, requires agencies to report more information about each seizure and forfeiture, and requires the attorney general to share information about individual cases.

Advocates on both sides of the debate still would have anecdotes to support their arguments. But they also would have meaningful data. If civil forfeiture works as well as law enforcement agencies claim, they should welcome the sunlight.

Lee McGrath is senior legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. Daryl James is a writer for the organization.