DEA Returns $86,900 to Veteran as Lawsuit Targets Nevada Cash Seizures

Institute for Justice

Federal adoption programs drive local police to confiscate roadside cash without criminal charges because agencies receive up to 80 percent kickbacks from seized funds.

AI-assisted summary of Watch Cops Seize Combat Vet's Life Savings [RARE FOOTAGE] — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2021-11-30

Key ideas

Nevada Highway Patrol pulled over retired Marine Stephen Lara for an alleged minor following-distance violation, subjected him to an interdiction interrogation, and seized his life savings of $86,900 without filing any criminal charges or issuing a ticket. (0:12)
Officers seized the cash specifically for federal 'adoption' by the DEA, which utilizes the equitable sharing program to return up to 80% of forfeited funds directly back into the seizing police department's budget. (4:34)
Although Lara provided legitimate bank withdrawal receipts, a highway patrol sergeant dropped the bag of cash on the roadside dirt to manufacture a K-9 alert as justification for the confiscation. (7:46)
After holding the money past federal deadlines, the DEA agreed within 24 hours of a federal lawsuit by the Institute for Justice to return all $86,900, while a parallel state lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of federal adoptions in Nevada. (11:36)

Detailed notes

## Background Published by the Institute for Justice on YouTube on November 30, 2021, this video documents the roadside seizure of combat veteran Stephen Lara's life savings by the Nevada Highway Patrol. The accompanying description details how Lara was stripped of $86,900 via the federal "adoption" process and equitable sharing program, leading to a successful federal lawsuit and an ongoing state constitutional challenge to eliminate the profit motive in roadside asset forfeitures.

## TL;DR While driving through Nevada to visit his daughters, retired U.S. Marine Stephen Lara was pulled over under the pretext of following a truck too closely and consented to a vehicle search. Despite Lara's full cooperation, clean record, and legitimate bank withdrawal receipts, troopers deployed a drug-sniffing canine on his cash and seized $86,900 to route it through the DEA's federal adoption program for an equitable sharing budget payout. Stranded roadside with only a property receipt, Lara endured months of federal inaction until the Institute for Justice intervened with a lawsuit that forced the return of his funds. The video uses Lara's harrowing experience to expose the systemic abuses of civil asset forfeiture and calls for its total abolition.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation evokes a chilling, surreal tension by juxtaposing the polite, conversational tone of the officers with the predatory reality of a state-sanctioned taking. Watching the raw bodycam footage creates a deep sense of vulnerability and indignation as a cooperative, decorated veteran is systematically stripped of his financial security on a desert highway. The narrative evolves from roadside helplessness into focused resolve, turning personal outrage into a broader crusade against an unjust legal system.

## Bulletin - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) Nevada Highway Patrol pulled over retired Marine Stephen Lara for an alleged minor following-distance violation, subjected him to an interdiction interrogation, and seized his life savings of $86,900 without filing any criminal charges or issuing a ticket. - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) Officers seized the cash specifically for federal 'adoption' by the DEA, which utilizes the equitable sharing program to return up to 80% of forfeited funds directly back into the seizing police department's budget. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) Although Lara provided legitimate bank withdrawal receipts, a highway patrol sergeant dropped the bag of cash on the roadside dirt to manufacture a K-9 alert as justification for the confiscation. - [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) After holding the money past federal deadlines, the DEA agreed within 24 hours of a federal lawsuit by the Institute for Justice to return all $86,900, while a parallel state lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of federal adoptions in Nevada.

## Key takeaways - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) Stephen Lara was stopped by the Nevada Highway Patrol outside Reno under the pretext of an educational campaign regarding following distance behind commercial trucks. - [02:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=157s) Despite complying fully with officers, admitting he had cash, and consenting to a vehicle search, Lara was subjected to an escalating highway interdiction interrogation. - [05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=354s) Carrying large sums of cash is entirely legal in the United States, which the questioning officer explicitly acknowledged during the stop. - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) Officers discovered $86,900 in bundled currency alongside legitimate bank withdrawal receipts documenting Lara's historical withdrawals. - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) Federal 'adoption' allows state law enforcement to bypass state-level statutory protections by transferring seized assets to federal agencies like the DEA under civil forfeiture rules. - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) Under the federal equitable sharing program, local police departments receive kickbacks of up to 80% of the seized cash, creating a strong institutional profit motive for roadside seizures. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) A patrol sergeant bypassed the junior officer's reservations and insisted on running a drug-sniffing K-9 past the open bag of cash on the dirt shoulder to create probable cause. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) Drug dog alerts on currency are unreliable indicators of crime because scientific studies show between 67% and 100% of circulating U.S. paper money carries detectable narcotic traces. - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) Left stranded on the highway with only a paper receipt and a DEA contact number, Lara had to borrow $1,000 from his brother just to purchase fuel and food to see his daughters. - [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) The DEA held Lara's funds indefinitely, ignoring a six-month statutory deadline requiring the agency to return the money, charge him with a crime, or initiate forfeiture proceedings. - [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) The DEA agreed to return 100% of Lara's seized money within 24 hours after the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit and The Washington Post made media inquiries. - [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) The Institute for Justice filed a companion lawsuit in Nevada state court seeking to declare federal adoptions unconstitutional under Nevada's protections against unreasonable seizures. - [12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) Most victims of roadside civil asset forfeiture cannot afford private counsel or navigate convoluted administrative procedures, resulting in default government confiscations without any proof of a crime.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) The Traffic Stop and Public Information Pretext

On February 19, 2021, Stephen Lara, a retired U.S. Marine, was traveling west outside Reno, Nevada, on his regular trip to visit his two teenage daughters in a small California town just over the state line. Driving a rental car due to mechanical issues with his own vehicle, Stephen was pulled over by an officer of the Nevada Highway Patrol. The officer claimed that Stephen had committed a traffic infraction by following a red-and-blue semi-truck too closely, alleging a following distance of less than a second.

The initial tone of the stop was disarmingly polite. The patrolman assured Stephen that he had stopped him as part of a educational enforcement campaign: “The reason I'm stopping with a special enforcement campaign going on we're trying to educate drivers about violations they may not realize they're committing but we're seeing a big increase in crashes out here.” The officer praised Stephen’s speed and caution, stating, “First of all, John, your driving—you drive great, you're driving really slow, it appears that you're driving trying to drive safely under the speed limit, I appreciate that.” He maintained that he merely wanted to discuss following distance behind commercial vehicles. Stephen was ordered out of the vehicle, not suspecting that the stop was an interdiction trap.

- Stephen Lara was not arrested, charged with any crime, or even issued a traffic citation. - Through a public records request, the Institute for Justice secured both body camera and dashcam recordings documenting the entire stop through to the bank deposit.

---

[02:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=157s) Interdiction Interrogation and Vehicle Search

Once Stephen was standing outside the vehicle, the officer shifted into an interrogation routine aimed at sizing him up and looking for inconsistencies in his story. Noting Stephen's athletic build and clothing, the officer asked, “You a fighter?” to which Stephen noted his background: “Well, I've got a lot of training, I'm a retired Marine.” The officer peppered him with rapid-fire questions covering his family, what his daughters do, whether he had prior arrests, where he had worked in Texas, and where he planned to buy a house.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Progression of Roadside Interdiction Stop accDescr: Sequence of events from the initial traffic stop pretext to the search of the vehicle. A["Traffic Stop: Alleged Following Distance Violation"] --> B["Friendly Pretext: Public Education Campaign"] B --> C["Personal Interrogation: Marine Background & Travel Plans"] C --> D["Interdiction Query: Firearms, Contraband & Large Currency"] D --> E["Consent Given: Stephen Consents to Search Car"] ```

The officer then dropped the pretext of safe driving and admitted his actual operational role: “Part of my job out here is I do what's called highway interdiction. I look for people that are smuggling contraband through our state across the country—weapons, humans, drugs, illicit currency, things like that.” He pressed Stephen on whether there were firearms, explosives, or narcotics inside. When asked if there was any large amount of U.S. currency, Stephen was completely honest, volunteering that he was carrying well over $10,000. When the officer asked for permission to search the vehicle, Stephen immediately agreed. Stephen later reflected on his mindset: “I didn't want to come across as being non-cooperative or combative, so I did what I felt was right and I was very honest, very forthcoming, I was also very respectful and I just wanted to make their job as easy as possible so that i could be on my way to spend time with my children.”

- Stephen openly confirmed the presence of his savings rather than attempting to conceal it. - Although he had a constitutional right to refuse the vehicle search, Stephen consented to avoid any appearance of guilt or friction.

---

[04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) Equitable Sharing and the Federal Adoption Incentive

While searching the vehicle, the officer discovered Stephen's money bundled in a Ziploc sandwich bag along with bank receipts showing historical withdrawals. The officer stepped away to call a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent named Shane: “If I'm still searching a car, but a big bundle of money says probably at least a hundred thousand.” This call reveals the structural motivation behind the seizure: civil forfeiture through federal "adoption" and the federal equitable sharing program.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Federal Equitable Sharing Money Flow accDescr: Chart illustrating how seized roadside funds are routed through the DEA and returned to local police budgets. subgraph S1["Roadside Action"] A["Nevada Highway Patrol seizes cash"] end subgraph S2["Federal Adoption"] B["DEA adopts seizure under federal law"] C["Bypasses Nevada state property protections"] end subgraph S3["Equitable Sharing Payout"] D["Up to 80% kicked back to NHP budget (~$70,000)"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D ```

Under this federal statutory framework, when state or local law enforcement seizes assets, federal agencies can "adopt" the seizure and pursue civil forfeiture under federal statutes. This sidesteps state-level statutory protections that require criminal convictions or place higher burdens of proof on the government. In exchange, the seizing agency receives up to an 80 percent kickback of the forfeited proceeds for its own budget. In Stephen's situation, turning over his $86,900 nest egg meant the Nevada Highway Patrol stood to gain nearly $70,000 directly into its department coffers. Nationally, federal agencies funneled $334 million to state and local police in equitable sharing payouts during 2019 alone.

---

[05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=354s) Legitimate Explanations Versus Adoption Plans

The officer admitted during his questioning that possessing cash is completely legal: “I'm a vet, he's a vet, you're a vet—it's not illegal to carry currency.” When Stephen explained his deep distrust of banks—a sentiment reinforced by recent neighborhood burglaries—the officer conceded, “I understand why you don't trust banks, especially in this day and age right now.” Stephen insisted, “I have nothing to hide from you.”

The officer then called his highway patrol sergeant, describing the situation as an unusual scenario: “This is a—it's a strange one, but not a strange one. Consents to a search, said there's money up there, we located what he says is a hundred thousand dollars, it's in a Ziploc sandwich baggie... there's a bunch of bank receipts and stuff in there as well.” While on the line, the officer interrupted his supervisor to take an incoming call from DEA Agent Shane. About 20 minutes later, the arriving Highway Patrol sergeant hopped on a phone call with Shane, who apologized for being unable to drive out to the highway in person. The sergeant dismissed any difficulty, assuring the DEA agent: “No issues, it's too easy to do an adoption, you know we contacted you, so I think everything's going to be okay, and I'll text you a money count, I forget, it'll probably be a couple hours.” Despite lacking any criminal evidence or probable cause, the officers had already resolved to process the cash through federal adoption.

---

[07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) The K-9 Sniff and Roadside Seizure

The sergeant approached Stephen to interrogate him again about his financial habits, and Stephen repeated that his decision was rooted in personal distrust: “That's just my reasoning, it's my personal thing.” The sergeant then conferenced in private with the junior officer, asking, “What are your thoughts, Chris?” The junior officer hesitated, noting the exculpatory evidence: “It's odd, but it's not packed... and he's answering the questions, there's receipts here.” Despite the legitimate bank receipts and Stephen’s transparent answers, the sergeant pushed forward, insisting, “I would like to put the dog on the currency, man.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Dog Sniff Pretext Workflow accDescr: Diagram of the procedure used by officers to justify seizing Stephen Lara's currency with a K-9 alert. A["Legitimate Bank Withdrawal Receipts Shown"] --> B["Sergeant Rejects Receipts & Orders K-9 Sniff"] B --> C["Sergeant Drops Open Ziploc Bag of Cash on Dirt Roadside"] C --> D["K-9 Signals 'Positive Alert'"] D --> E["NHP Claims Probable Cause for Narcotics Connection"] E --> F["Cash Confiscated & Transferred to DEA"] ```

The sergeant took the open Ziploc bag of cash and dropped it directly onto the dirt shoulder, less than 40 yards from Stephen's vehicle, running a narcotics-detection canine past it until the dog produced an alert. Although scientific studies demonstrate that between 67% and 100% of circulating U.S. paper currency carries detectable trace residues of narcotics—meaning a K-9 alert does not substantiate an illegal drug link—the sergeant seized on the alert as the pretext he required. He returned to Stephen to announce that the cash was being confiscated: “I'm gonna tell you guys what's gonna happen, okay? We're gonna seize it today, but that doesn't mean we're the final judgment on it, it's gonna go through the DEA, okay? So the DEA will contact you and the DEA will provide you with a means to fight it, you're gonna have to provide your pay stubs, you're gonna have to provide your other receipts and stuff like that.”

- Stephen had to phone his brother from the roadside to wire him $1,000 so he could buy fuel and food to complete his trip to visit his daughters. - After an ordeal lasting roughly ninety minutes, Stephen was handed a mere property receipt featuring a phone number for the DEA agent.

---

[11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) Aftermath and Legal Challenges

Holding a paper receipt in place of his life savings of $86,900, Stephen was left bewildered on the side of the road, asking, “This is all I get here?” to which the officer answered, “That's what you get, yes sir, you're going to get notice in the mail as well at that address, okay.” Stephen later spoke about the chilling realization of how vulnerable regular people are to state-sanctioned taking: “I find it even more so concerning that if this could happen to me as a combat veteran who served overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, this could happen to anybody.”

Under federal law, the DEA had an obligation to either charge Stephen with a crime, commence a civil forfeiture action against the property, or return the money within a six-month statutory deadline. The agency did none of these things, keeping the $86,900 indefinitely. On August 30, 2021, the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the DEA on Stephen’s behalf. Within twenty-four hours—and facing urgent inquiries from *The Washington Post*—the DEA surrendered and agreed to return every dollar of Stephen's savings. However, Stephen and IJ did not stop there; they proceeded with a parallel state constitutional lawsuit against the Nevada Highway Patrol. The state lawsuit challenges the legality of federal adoptions in Nevada under the state constitution's guarantees against unreasonable seizures without probable cause, seeking to dismantle the perverse financial incentives that fuel roadside civil forfeiture once and for all.

[12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) The Flaws of Civil Forfeiture and the Call for Abolition

Although Stephen Lara ultimately recovered his seized life savings, his resolution remains an extreme exception rather than the norm in civil asset forfeiture cases. Because Stephen secured legal representation from the Institute for Justice, he was able to challenge the seizure and force the government to return his money. The vast majority of people targeted by roadside forfeitures do not have access to dedicated public interest litigators. Stripped of their funds during traffic stops, these individuals are frequently left without the financial means to retain private defense counsel, forcing them to confront an arcane legal system entirely on their own.

Without legal representation, ordinary citizens must attempt to navigate Byzantine statutory deadlines and complicated administrative procedures just to ask for a hearing. When victims cannot afford a lawyer or decipher the convoluted bureaucracy, agencies retain the seized cash and assets by default. The narrator underscores the inherent injustice of this mechanism, observing: “Most victims of forfeiture don't have a public interest law firm like IJ to take their case and if they cannot afford an attorney and cannot figure out how to navigate convoluted forfeiture processes on their own the government walks away with their property without ever having to prove any crime.” The segment concludes with an urgent demand for legislative and judicial action, declaring: “This highway robbery must end it is time to abolish civil forfeiture.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Civil Forfeiture Trap vs Representation accDescr: A flow diagram contrasting the path of typical civil forfeiture victims against those with pro bono legal representation.

subgraph Seizure["Roadside Seizure"] A["Driver stopped and cash seized"] end

subgraph TypicalPath["Typical Victim Outcome"] B["Cannot afford attorney"] --> C["Must navigate complex legal rules alone"] C --> D["Deadlines missed or claims abandoned"] D --> E["Government keeps property without proving a crime"] end

subgraph IJPath["Representation by IJ"] F["Public interest firm files federal & state lawsuits"] F --> G["Government surrenders and returns full funds"] end

A -->|"No representation"| B A -->|"Secures legal backing"| F ```

- Most forfeiture victims lack the resources to retain private counsel and cannot obtain pro bono aid from public interest firms like the Institute for Justice. - When individuals cannot navigate administrative forfeiture rules, law enforcement agencies routinely keep seized cash by default without ever filing criminal charges or proving guilt in court. - The Institute for Justice characterizes roadside asset seizures without criminal charges as state-sanctioned highway robbery that must be abolished.

## Notable quotes > [11:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=696s) I find it even more so concerning that if this could happen to me as a combat veteran who served overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, this could happen to anybody. — Stephen Lara

> [12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) This highway robbery must end it is time to abolish civil forfeiture. — Narrator

## Mentioned Stephen Lara, Glenn Rigdon, Shane, Nevada Highway Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration, Institute for Justice, The Washington Post, Reno, Nevada, Lubbock, Texas, California, Iraq, Afghanistan

## Video description Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture.

Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border.

https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/

In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely.

The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash.

Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget.

In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf.

Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions.

When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.”

And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures.

Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs)

中文简报

DEA归还退伍军人86,900美元，诉讼直指内华达州现金扣押联邦“领养”项目驱使地方警察在未提出刑事指控的情况下在路边没收现金，因为执法机构可从扣押资金中获得高达80%的回扣。美国海军陆战队退伍军人Stephen Lara在驾车穿过内华达州去探望女儿途中，被警方以紧跟前车为由拦下，并同意了搜查车辆。尽管Lara全力配合、记录清白，并出示了合法的银行取款收据，巡警仍让缉毒犬对他的现金进行嗅探，并扣押了86,900美元，以便通过DEA的联邦“领养”项目转入“公平分享”预算拨款。Lara手头仅剩一张财物收据被困路边，苦等数月未见联邦任何行动，直到司法研究所（Institute for Justice）介入提起诉讼，才迫使对方归还了这笔资金。视频以Lara的惨痛经历揭露了民事资产没收的制度性滥用，并呼吁彻底废除该制度。内华达州公路巡警因涉嫌轻微跟车距离过近违规拦下退伍军人Stephen Lara，对其进行了拦截审讯，并在未提出任何刑事指控或开具罚单的情况下扣押了他全部积蓄86,900美元。 (0:12) 警官扣押这笔现金是为了专门交由DEA进行联邦“领养”，该机构利用“公平分享”项目将高达80%的没收资金直接返还至扣押警局的预算中。 (4:34) 尽管Lara提供了合法的银行取款收据，一名公路巡警警长仍将装有现金的袋子扔在路边泥地上，以制造警犬示警作为没收的借口。 (7:46) 在扣押款项超过联邦期限后，面对司法研究所提起的联邦诉讼，DEA在24小时内同意归还全部86,900美元，与此同时，一项平行的州诉讼正在质疑内华达州联邦“领养”的合宪性。 (11:36)

Reading summary

Footage obtained by the Institute for Justice documents how Nevada state troopers used a pretextual traffic stop to seize $86,900 in life savings from retired Marine Stephen Lara without charging him with a crime. The organization argues that the seizure demonstrates how federal civil forfeiture programs incentivize local law enforcement to confiscate cash from innocent citizens for budgetary gain. Pretextual Stops and Roadside Interrogation Tactics (0:12) On February 19, 2021, Nevada Highway Patrol pulled over Stephen Lara outside Reno, Nevada, claiming he followed a commercial truck too closely. The officer initially framed the stop as an educational campaign, praising Lara's cautious driving before ordering him out of the vehicle and questioning him about his military background, family, employment, and travel plans. The patrolman eventually revealed his assignment in highway interdiction and asked whether the car contained contraband or large sums of cash. Lara, who had mechanical issues with his own car and was driving a rental to visit his daughters in California, cooperated fully and admitted he was carrying over $10,000. Believing transparency would prevent confrontation, Lara consented to a vehicle search. Troopers found $86,900 bundled in a Ziploc bag alongside legitimate bank withdrawal receipts. Lara was never arrested, cited, or charged with an offense. Financial Motives Behind Federal Adoption (4:34) Body camera and dashcam recordings revealed that officers immediately contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate a federal 'adoption.' Under the federal equitable sharing program, federal agencies can adopt state asset seizures under federal civil forfeiture statutes, bypassing state laws that demand higher burdens of proof or prior criminal convictions. This framework returns up to 80 percent of the seized proceeds back to the local agency's budget. For the Nevada Highway Patrol, seizing Lara's $86,900 presented a potential department payout of nearly $70,000. Nationally, the federal equitable sharing program distributed $334 million to state and local police agencies in 2019 alone, establishing a strong institutional incentive for roadside cash confiscations. Questionable Probable Cause and the K-9 Sniff (7:46) Although the stopping officer acknowledged to Lara that carrying cash is legal and recognized his distrust of banks, a supervisor directed the seizure to proceed. Acknowledging that Lara had provided legitimate withdrawal receipts and responsive answers, the sergeant nevertheless placed the unsealed bag of cash on the roadside dirt shoulder and conducted a dog sniff. A K-9 unit alerted to the currency, which officers treated as probable cause of drug involvement. However, research indicates that between 67% and 100% of circulating U.S. paper money carries detectable narcotics residue, rendering such alerts uninformative regarding criminal activity. Lara was left stranded on the highway with only a paper property receipt, requiring an emergency wire transfer from his brother to purchase fuel and food. Litigation and Structural Barriers for Forfeiture Victims (11:36) Federal statutes required the DEA to file criminal charges, initiate civil forfeiture, or return Lara's money within six months, but the agency missed this deadline and kept the funds. After the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit on August 30, 2021, accompanied by press inquiries from The Washington Post, the DEA returned the entire $86,900 within twenty-four hours. The Institute for Justice emphasizes that Lara's outcome is an anomaly. Most civil forfeiture victims cannot obtain pro bono legal representation or afford private attorneys, forcing them to navigate complex administrative deadlines alone. When individuals fail to overcome these procedural hurdles, law enforcement agencies retain the seized property by default without ever proving criminal conduct. Following the return of Lara's money, the Institute for Justice filed a state constitutional challenge against the Nevada Highway Patrol, arguing that federal adoptions violate state protections against unreasonable seizures without probable cause. The organization contends that civil forfeiture operates as state-sanctioned robbery and should be completely abolished.

精炼阅读摘要

公共利益法律机构Institute for Justice指出，内华达州公路巡警在未指控任何犯罪、未开具交通罚单的情况下，利用合法的联邦“收养”漏洞扣押了退役海军陆战队员Stephen Lara的86,900美元毕生积蓄。该机构批评现行民事资产没收和联邦“公平分享”机制将执法权与财政利益挂钩，在无需证明犯罪的前提下剥夺公民合法财产。借口式交通拦截与路边搜查 (0:12) 2021年2月19日，退役美国海军陆战队员Stephen Lara在内华达州雷诺郊外驱车探望女儿途中被内华达州公路巡警拦截。巡警最初以跟车距离不足一秒的交通违规及公共安全教育为借口，对Lara的平稳驾驶予以称赞，以此降低其戒备心。随后巡警迅速转换策略，承认自己实际负责公路违禁品拦截，并就Lara的服役经历、家庭生活及购房计划展开密集盘问。当被问及车内资产时，Lara坦诚携带了超过10,000美元的个人积蓄，并主动同意搜查车辆以证明清白，避免被执法人员视作不合作。联邦收养机制与执法分成利益 (4:34) 巡警在车辆内搜出装在自封袋中的86,900美元现金以及多张正规银行取款凭证。尽管携带大额现金并不违法且现场无任何毒品武器，巡警仍立即致电美国缉毒局（DEA）特工启动联邦“收养”（Federal Adoption）程序。该机制允许联邦机构接管地方执法部门扣押的资产，直接适用联邦民事没收法，从而绕过内华达州法律中对公民财产设立的保护门槛与定罪要求。作为回报，参与查扣的内华达州公路巡警可依据联邦“公平分享”（Equitable Sharing）项目获得高达80%的没收返还款，本案中预计可直接为部门带来近70,000美元的财政收入。数据显示，仅在2019年，联邦机构便通过该计划向各州及地方警局分流了3.34亿美元的资金。伪造合理根据的警犬嗅探 (7:46) 面对Lara出示的合法银行取款单据，到场督导的巡警警长无视下属提出的缺乏犯罪证据的疑虑，坚持对现金进行警犬嗅探。警长将打开的钱袋直接丢在距离车辆不到40码的路边泥地上，引导缉毒犬对现金产生“警示反应”，并以此作为推定款项关联毒品交易的合理根据。然而，科学研究表明流通中67%至100%的美元纸币均带有可检测出的微量毒品残留，警犬示警在科学上根本不能证明违法。巡警据此扣押了这笔款项，仅向Lara提供了一张写有DEA特工联络方式的收据，导致身无分文的Lara不得不向其兄弟紧急借取1,000美元电汇以支付返程汽油和餐饮开销。诉讼施压退款与民事没收困境 (11:36) 按照联邦法律，DEA在扣押资产后必须在六个月内提起刑事指控、提起民事没收诉讼或全额退款，但该机构逾期未采取任何合法行动。2021年8月30日，Institute for Justice代表Lara向联邦法院提起诉讼，在司法抗辩及《华盛顿邮报》（The Washington Post）介入询问后的24小时内，DEA迅速妥协并退还了全部86,900美元。随后Lara与IJ针对内华达州公路巡警追加了州宪法诉讼，旨在取缔规避正当程序的联邦收养模式。IJ指出，由于多数资产遭没收者无法聘请私人律师也得不到公益代理，繁琐晦涩的行政申诉程序往往导致普通公民在政府未证明任何犯罪的情况下被永久剥夺财产。 Institute for Justice强调，Stephen Lara在法律援助下追回储蓄只是罕见特例，反映出民事没收制度将执法权与部门创收动机深度捆绑的结构性缺陷。该机构呼吁立法和司法层面全面废除无罪没收制度，切断地方执法部门利用联邦规避机制获取资产分成的利益链条。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由公益法律机构司法正义研究所（Institute for Justice, IJ）于 2021 年 11 月 30 日发布在 YouTube 平台。页面简介讲述了退伍海军陆战队员斯蒂芬·拉拉（Stephen Lara）在驾车探望女儿途中被内华达州公路巡警拦截，并在未受任何犯罪指控的情况下被强行查扣 86,900 美元毕生积蓄的遭遇，以及 IJ 介入提起联邦诉讼讨回全款并挑战内华达州民事没收制度的维权行动。 ## TL;DR 视频通过完整的现场执法记录仪画面，揭露了一名退伍军人遭遇民事没收与联邦“收养”漏洞的全过程。斯蒂芬·拉拉在行车途中被巡警以跟车过近为由拦停，尽管他全程坦诚配合且出示了合法的银行取款凭证，巡警高层仍执意联络联邦缉毒局（DEA）接管资金，企图利用“衡平分享”机制瓜分高达 80% 的扣押款。在将钱袋扔在泥地上让警犬嗅闻制造出扣押借口后，警方将斯蒂芬身无分文地抛在路边，直至 IJ 代理提起联邦诉讼并在媒体广泛曝光后，DEA 才在 24 小时内全额退还钱款，案件随后转向彻底废除该州联邦收养机制的宪法诉讼。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片充斥着令人窒息的不公感与强烈的纪实震慑力，执法记录仪第一视角的冰冷记录与当事人诚恳配合下的无辜受困形成了巨大反差。镜头随着警察从表面客气的安全寒暄步步升级为处心积虑的搜查与利益串通，让人切身感受到守法普通人在公权力滥用与制度陷阱面前的无力与荒谬。从老兵被迫向家人借钱继续赶路的酸楚，到最终维权反击、直面国家机器的坚定，整个叙事兼具理性的制度批判与直击人心的法治警示。 ## Bulletin - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) 退伍海军陆战队员斯蒂芬·拉拉因所谓的“跟车过近”被内华达州公路巡警拦截，在未受任何犯罪指控或交通违章处罚的情况下，其携带的 86,900 美元合法积蓄被现场强行扣押。 - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) 地方巡警利用联邦“收养”（Adoption）机制与缉毒局（DEA）对接，借助“衡平分享”计划可将没收款项的最高 80% 返还地方警局预算，形成了强烈的执法牟利动机。 - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) 执法人员通过将装钱的袋子置于路边泥地并引来缉毒犬进行“阳性警示”作为扣押依据，但科学研究表明全美多达 67% 至 100% 的流通纸币均带有微量毒品残留。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) 在司法正义研究所提起联邦诉讼及《华盛顿邮报》介入质询后，DEA 于 24 小时内全额归还扣押款项；维权团队正进一步在州法院推进违宪审查，力求彻底阻断联邦收养漏洞。 ## Key takeaways - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) 伊拉克与阿富汗参战退伍老兵斯蒂芬·拉拉在探望女儿途中，因莫须有的交通微小借口遭遇公路拦截并被扣押毕生积蓄。 - [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) 执法记录仪完整记录了从借故拦截、层层诱导盘问到将现金存入银行的整个公权力滥用全过程。 - [02:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=126s) 巡警以开展“交通安全公共宣传”为幌子降低当事人戒备，随后迅速将盘问重点转向毒品与大额现金走私的公路缉私审查。 - [02:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=126s) 当事人坦诚配合搜查并主动出示了多年银行取款发票凭据，但诚实合作反而直接招致了财产扣押。 - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) 地方警察绕开州法严格扣押限制的关键手段是联邦“收养”（Adoption）程序，将案件转交联邦缉毒局（DEA）接管。 - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) 联邦“衡平分享计划”允许地方执法机构分得最高 80% 的没收资金，仅 2019 年全美分成金额就达 3.34 亿美元，构成了巨大的经济利益驱动。 - [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) 尽管现场警员承认当事人带现金并不违法且包装正规，赶到现场的警长仍执意主导推进没收流程。 - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) 警长将钱袋扔在路边让缉毒犬嗅闻，利用广受科学质疑的货币犬嗅阳性警示作为推定涉毒犯罪的合法借口。 - [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) 所有现金被洗劫一空的斯蒂芬在路边陷入绝境，不得不紧急向家人借款 1,000 美元才能继续行程。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) DEA 在长达六个月的法定退还期限内既未提起刑事起诉，也未依法展开民事没收裁决，非法扣押公民合法资产。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) 在司法正义研究所提起联邦诉讼与媒体曝光的双重压力下，联邦政府被迫无条件全额退还了扣押的 86,900 美元。 - [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) 本案促成了针对内华达州公路巡警的州宪法诉讼，旨在以正当程序原则彻底废除该州通过联邦收养规避州法的牟利机制。 - [12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) 绝大多数遭遇民事没收的普通公民因缺乏法律援助且无力承担昂贵律师费，导致私有财产在政府免于证明犯罪的情况下被合法掠夺。 - [12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) 民事没收制度沦为了变相的“合法拦路抢劫”，必须通过立法改革与司法诉讼彻底废除该制度以消除执法牟利温床。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=12s) 退伍老兵公路遭扣押毕生积蓄视频开篇是一段执法记录仪的紧张对话。警官布朗（Officer Brown）对当事人说：“就像我刚才说的，我们现在认为这是涉毒所得现金。”当事人立刻坚定地反驳道：“那我会向你证明它绝对不是。” 画面随后揭示了令人震惊的事实：一名美国退伍海军陆战队士兵在公路边被扣押了毕生积蓄。他没有被逮捕，没有受到任何犯罪指控，没有被定罪，甚至连一张交通罚单都没有收到。司法正义研究所（Institute for Justice, IJ）通过公共记录申请，完整获取了从最初交通拦截、路边搜查、警犬嗅闻，直到扣押现金被存入银行的全部执法记录仪和行车记录仪录像。这是该机构所见过针对此类权力滥用最完整的现场影像记录。 2021 年 2 月 19 日，当事人斯蒂芬·拉拉（Stephen Lara）驱车前往加州一个小镇探望两个女儿。途径内华达州里诺（Reno）郊外时，他被内华达州公路巡警（Nevada Highway Patrol, NHP）拦截。巡警声称拦停的原因是他在跟随一辆红蓝相间的半挂卡车时跟车过近，车距不足一秒。斯蒂芬解释道，自己的车出了故障，所以那个周末临时租了一辆车出行，起初他还以为是因为租来的车牌照标签过期才被拦下。 ### [02:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=126s) 从“交通安全宣传”转向缉毒盘问巡警在接触斯蒂芬时表现得十分友好，甚至赞扬了他的驾驶习惯：“你开得很棒，开得非常慢，看得出来你一直在努力安全驾驶、低于限速行驶，我很欣赏这一点。”警官声称他们正在开展一项特别执法宣传活动，旨在提醒司机注意不易察觉的违章行为。然而，警官随即命令斯蒂芬下车，并开始连珠炮般询问与交通拦截毫无关系的个人背景问题，试图寻找供词破绽： - 询问斯蒂芬身上穿的 Tapout 衣服，质疑他是不是格斗选手（斯蒂芬回答自己受过大量训练，是一名退伍海军陆战队员）。 - 盘问女儿的日常、是否曾与执法部门惹过麻烦。 - 追问他何时离开德州、打算在哪个区域买房，以及在当地从事什么工作。盘问过后，警官终于摊牌，说明了拦截的真正意图：“我在这项工作中的一部分职责是进行所谓的公路拦截缉私（highway interdiction）。我寻找那些穿过我们州、跨越全美走私违禁品的人——武器、人口、毒品、非法货币等等。”在逐一询问车上是否有枪支、爆炸物和可卡因等毒品后，警官单刀直入询问是否有大额美元现金。斯蒂芬坦诚回答车内有超过一万美元的现金。警官顺势请求搜查车辆，斯蒂芬主动同意配合。斯蒂芬事后回忆道：“我不想表现得不配合或者具有攻击性，所以我做了我认为正确的事，我非常诚实、非常坦率，同时也非常尊重对方。我只是想让他们尽可能轻松地完成工作，好让我能继续赶路去陪孩子。” ### [04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=274s) 联邦“收养”机制与利益分成驱动在搜查车辆时，警官发现了一大包现金，随后立刻打电话联系美国缉毒局（DEA）特工谢恩（Shane）：“我还在搜车，但发现了一大捆钱，说是有至少十万。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 联邦收养与衡平分享流程图 accDescription: 展示地方警方扣押现金后移交联邦DEA并获得资金返还的运作机制 subgraph 地方执法阶段 A["内华达州公路巡警 (NHP) 路边拦截并搜查车辆"] --> B["发现大额合法现金 (约8.7万美元)"] end subgraph 联邦收养与分成机制 B --> C["发起联邦收养 (Adoption) 规避州法严格扣押限制"] C --> D["联邦缉毒局 (DEA) 接管民事没收程序"] D --> E["衡平分享计划 (Equitable Sharing) 最高将80%资金返还地方警方"] end ``` 这种操作揭露了警官拦截斯蒂芬的核心动机：即使斯蒂芬没有违法，联邦缉毒局也会通过“联邦收养”（federal adoption）程序接管这笔被扣押的现金。根据联邦的“衡平分享”（equitable sharing）计划，联邦机构接手没收程序后，会将高达 80% 的没收款项返还给最初扣押财产的州或地方执法机构，以此绕开州法律对没收财产所设定的严格限制。 - 仅在 2019 年，联邦机构就向州和地方执法机构发放了高达 3.34 亿美元的衡平分享分成。 - 在本案中，内华达州公路巡警一旦成功扣押斯蒂芬的积蓄，将有望直接分得近 7 万美元的预算资金。警官搜出了装在密封袋里的现金后，斯蒂芬主动说明自己不信任银行，并且袋子里装满了历年从银行取款的凭证发票。警官当面承认：“我知道你是个好人……带现金并不违法。”但警官随后中断了与上级的汇报电话，优先与 DEA 特工沟通。约 20 分钟后赶到现场的巡警警长格伦·里格顿（Sergeant Glenn Rigdon）在电话中对 DEA 特工保证道：“没问题，做收养太容易了。既然我们联系了你，我觉得一切都会很顺利。我回头给你发短信报具体金额，大概需要几个小时。” ### [07:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=466s) 强行调用缉毒犬制造扣押借口尽管现场毫无犯罪证据，警长在私下向负责拦车的巡警询问看法时，巡警克里斯（Chris）承认：“这很奇怪，但这钱不是违禁包装的那种形式，而且他在回答所有问题，这里还有取款收据。”但警长执意推进，下令道：“我想让缉毒犬嗅一下这笔现金。” 巡警警长将装有斯蒂芬积蓄的拉链密封袋打开，直接扔在距离车辆不到 40 码的路边泥地上，随后牵来警犬嗅闻。缉毒犬做出“阳性警示”（positive alert）反应。警长立刻认定这就是扣押资金的法律借口。然而科学研究早已表明，全美流通的纸币中有 67% 至 100% 都带有微量毒品残留，单纯针对货币的警犬警示根本无法证明该款项来自非法毒品交易。警长随即告知斯蒂芬钱款将被没收，理由是怀疑涉及加州北部的跨州大麻走私交易：“我们今天会扣押它，但这并不意味着我们是最终判决。它将移交给 DEA，DEA 会联系你，并向你提供申诉抗辩的途径。你必须提供工资存根、收据等文件。”斯蒂芬瞬间失去了所有积蓄，身无分文的他只能给弟弟打电话，请求紧急电汇 1,000 美元作为路费，才得以继续前往加州探望女儿。 ### [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) 耗时六月的抗争与宪法维权诉讼在路边被滞留近一个半小时后，巡警仅仅给了斯蒂芬一张毫无保障的现金扣押收据，上面只有一个 DEA 特工的联系电话。斯蒂芬在镜头前感慨道：“这让我感到更加担忧，如果这种事能发生在我这样一个曾服役于伊拉克和阿富汗的海外参战退伍老兵身上，那么它可能发生在任何人身上。” 在被夺走近 8.7 万美元（实际金额为 86,900 美元）长达六个月的时间里，DEA 既未提起刑事指控，也未合法开启民事没收或退还财产。直到司法正义研究所代表斯蒂芬向联邦法院提起诉讼，且《华盛顿邮报》就此事向 DEA 提出尖锐质询后不到 24 小时内，DEA 才宣布无条件全额退还斯蒂芬的积蓄。然而维权并未结束，斯蒂芬与司法正义研究所随后在内华达州法院对内华达州公路巡警提起了重大州宪法诉讼，誓要彻底废止该州执法部门通过联邦收养漏洞牟取经济利益的滥权机制。 ### [12:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=759s) 拦路抢劫必须终结：呼吁废除民事没收制度在这场退伍军人斯蒂芬·拉拉（Stephen Lara）毕生积蓄被查扣的维权行动末尾，讲述人感慨指出，拉拉终究算得上是极少数的“幸运儿”，因为他最终拿回了自己的全额积蓄。然而，绝大多数遭遇民事没收（civil forfeiture）的普通受害者根本没有这样的机会，他们既没有像正义研究所（Institute for Justice, IJ）这样的公益诉讼律所免费代理案件，也根本无力自行聘请昂贵的专业律师。面对各级政府机构设置的一整套极其繁琐、晦涩难懂的没收申诉程序，普通民众单凭个人力量往往完全无法摸清门路。其结果就是，政府机关在从始至终无需向法庭证明当事人犯下任何罪行的情况下，就能合法而轻易地将公民的合法财产据为己有。面对这种倚仗公权力掠夺民众财产的荒谬现实，正义研究所发出了最严厉的控诉与呼吁，讲述人斩钉截铁地总结道：“This highway robbery must end it is time to abolish civil forfeiture.”（这种拦路抢劫行径必须终结，是时候彻底废除民事没收制度了。）这段视频在激昂的呼吁与背景音乐中落下帷幕，重申了彻底铲除这一滋生执法牟利温床的制度性诉求。 - **维权困境与制度现实**：绝大多数遭受民事没收的民众既请不起私人律师，也缺乏公益法律援助支持； - **免证定罪的财产掠夺**：在错综复杂的行政与法律流程壁垒下，执法机构在完全无需证明任何犯罪行为成立的前提下，即可将公民私有财产据为己有； - **核心倡议**：必须通过各州及联邦层面的法律改革与宪政诉讼，从根源上废除民事没收机制，斩断路面拦截执法背后的利益链条。 ## Notable quotes > [11:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs&t=686s) 如果这种事能发生在我这样一个曾服役于伊拉克和阿富汗的海外参战退伍老兵身上，那么它可能发生在任何人身上。 — 斯蒂芬·拉拉 ## Mentioned 斯蒂芬·拉拉, 格伦·里格顿, 布朗, 克里斯, 谢恩, 司法正义研究所, 内华达州公路巡警, 美国缉毒局, 《华盛顿邮报》, 美国海军陆战队, 里诺, Tapout ## Video description Stephen Lara did everything right. But, as subscribers of our YouTube channel know well, even innocent people aren’t safe from civil forfeiture. Stephen is a 39-year-old retired Marine from Lubbock, Texas. He is a devoted father of two teenage daughters and, once a month, he drives from Texas to see them in California, where they live with their mother. Eager to be closer after spending the pandemic in Texas caring for his elderly parents, he has been shopping for a home near the California-Nevada border. https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ In February 2021, Stephen was making his usual trip west through Reno when he was pulled over by the Nevada Highway Patrol for supposedly following a tractor-trailer too closely. The officer complimented Stephen’s driving, thanked him for observing the speed limit, and explained that NHP was “conducting a public information campaign” to help drivers avoid danger. Confident that the officer was only there to help, Stephen cooperated with his escalating investigation, even volunteering that he was carrying a large amount of cash. Ninety minutes later, Stephen had been robbed of his life savings—$86,900—which he carried with him after a spate of robberies in his parents’ neighborhood. The officer who pulled Stephen over wanted to let him go; he was overruled by NHP Sergeant Glenn Rigdon, who ordered the money seized specifically so that it could be “adopted” by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. “Adoption” is a process by which federal law enforcement agencies can take over a seizure by state and local law enforcement. If the federal government is successful in forfeiting the property, its “equitable sharing” program guarantees the state or local agency that seized the property up to 80% of the proceeds for use in the agency’s budget. In Stephen’s case, the DEA sat on his life savings for months, ignoring the legal deadlines requiring it to charge Stephen with a crime, begin a civil forfeiture case against his property, or return the money within six months of seizure. The DEA did none of those things. So, on August 30, IJ sued it in federal court on Stephen’s behalf. Early the morning of September 1, the agency announced it would return all of Stephen’s money. In less than 24 hours, it had learned of our lawsuit, answered hard questions from The Washington Post, and committed to reviewing its policies for federal adoptions. When we learned he would be getting his money back (filled with joy), he told us, “This isn’t over.” And it isn’t. At the same time we filed in federal court, we also filed a major constitutional challenge in state court. Our state case aims to make federal adoptions impossible in Nevada as violations of the state constitution’s guarantees of reasonable seizures supported by probable cause and due process of law—not based on mere suspicion or for the financial benefit of the seizing agency. If we are successful, it will be the first time a state court has struck down federal adoptions. And a victory will take the profit motive out of roadside seizures. Filmed with a Canon C70 with a 50mm 1.2 lens. Aputure 300d, 120d, and amaran. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs)

Source quotes

[11:26] 斯蒂芬·拉拉: 如果这种事能发生在我这样一个曾服役于伊拉克和阿富汗的海外参战退伍老兵身上，那么它可能发生在任何人身上。

Source quotes

[11:36] Stephen Lara: I find it even more so concerning that if this could happen to me as a combat veteran who served overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, this could happen to anybody. [12:39] Narrator: This highway robbery must end it is time to abolish civil forfeiture.

Original transcript

[0:12] i just want to just tell you officer [0:14] brown i mean you've [0:19] like i said we we believe right now that [0:21] this is drug process currency well i'm [0:23] gonna prove to you that it's not perfect [0:27] [Music] [0:34] [Music] [0:42] that clip shows a retired u.s marine [0:44] being robbed of his life savings on the [0:46] side of a highway he was not arrested [0:48] for charged with or convicted of any [0:50] crime he wasn't even ticketed this is a [0:53] rare glimpse into an abuse of power that [0:55] thousands of innocent americans [0:57] experience each year [0:59] through a public records request the [1:00] institute for justice was able to [1:02] acquire body and dash cam footage of an [1:05] entire roadside seizure from the initial [1:07] traffic stop to the seized money being [1:09] deposited at the bank this is the most [1:11] complete footage we have ever seen [1:14] on february 19 2021 our client stephen [1:17] lara was pulled over outside of reno by [1:20] the nevada highway patrol he was driving [1:22] to visit his daughters in a small [1:23] california town just west of reno [1:28] [Music] [1:32] the driver of this vehicle was falling [1:33] at red and blue semi truck too closely [1:36] less than a second following this dance [1:41] [Music] [1:46] [Music] [1:50] yeah you know initially i i thought i [1:52] was getting pulled over uh because maybe [1:54] i had expired tags i had a rental car [1:56] unfortunately i had uh some car trouble [1:59] and that was necessary to get a rental [2:01] car for [2:03] a short duration [2:05] for that weekend [2:06] i'm doing great hey the reason i'm [2:08] stopping with a special enforcement [2:09] campaign going on we're trying to [2:10] educate drivers about violations they [2:11] may not realize they're committing but [2:13] we're seeing a big increase in crashes [2:14] out here first apply john you're driving [2:16] you drive great you're driving really [2:18] slow it appears that you're driving [2:20] trying to drive safely under the speed [2:21] limit i appreciate that i just want to [2:22] talk about your following distance [2:23] especially around commercial vehicles [2:25] the highway patrol officer seems [2:27] friendly and reasonable at first even [2:29] complimenting steven's driving he orders [2:31] steven to exit his vehicle and starts [2:33] asking him a series of questions [2:35] unrelated to why he was pulled over [2:37] police often ask questions like this to [2:39] see if a suspect's story lines up [2:42] you a fighter [2:44] yeah you got tapout shirt on [2:46] well i've got a lot of training i'm a [2:47] retired marine what do your daughters do [2:49] man ever been in trouble law enforcement [2:51] before when did you leave where did you [2:53] leave what part of texas you thinking [2:55] and buying a house in what were you [2:56] doing for work up there the officer then [2:58] explains the real reason he pulled [3:00] stephen over [3:02] hey while i'm working on this let me ask [3:03] you something man this is gonna sound [3:04] kind of weird um [3:06] part of my job out here is i do what's [3:07] called highway interdiction [3:09] i look for people that are smuggling [3:11] contraband through our state across the [3:12] country [3:13] uh weapons humans drugs illicit currency [3:16] things like that [3:17] anything in the vehicle i should be [3:18] aware of nothing okay no no firearms no [3:22] explosives okay um [3:25] is there any drugs in the vehicle [3:27] cocaine [3:29] yeah i gotta ask all these silly [3:30] questions right [3:33] okay um [3:35] any large amounts of united states [3:37] currency in the vehicle [3:39] okay [3:40] what's a large amount of u.s currency to [3:44] you okay so there's over 10 000 in there [3:48] okay how much money you got in there [3:50] okay [3:53] fair enough fair enough um would you [3:56] give me permission to search your [3:57] vehicle today [3:58] that's okay with you [4:00] okay perfect although it's steven's [4:02] right to refuse he gives the officer [4:04] permission to search his car [4:06] i didn't want [4:07] to come across as being [4:11] non-cooperative or combative [4:15] so [4:16] i did what i felt was right and i was [4:18] very [4:19] honest very forthcoming i was also very [4:22] respectful [4:24] and i just wanted to make their job as [4:25] easy as possible so that i could be on [4:27] my way to [4:29] spend time with my children [4:34] hey shane how are you [4:36] good hey can you head out to a traffic [4:37] stop are you busy on that other stuff [4:44] uh so if i'm still searching a car but a [4:47] big bundle of money says probably at [4:49] least a hundred thousand [4:51] that interaction shows what's at the [4:52] heart of the officer's interest in [4:54] stephen he knows that even though steven [4:56] did nothing wrong the dea will adopt the [4:59] seizure of his cash and return a portion [5:01] of the money to the highway patrol for [5:02] the favor of giving them the case [5:04] here's how an adoption works [5:08] when state or local police seize cash [5:11] cars or other property federal law [5:13] enforcement takes over the forfeiture [5:15] the federal agency does all the work and [5:18] kicks back up to 80 percent of the [5:20] proceeds to the state agency that sees [5:22] the property [5:23] in stephen's case that would mean the [5:25] dea would take control of the cash and [5:28] seek to forfeit it through federal law [5:30] ignoring the important limitations that [5:32] nevada law places on seizures and [5:34] forfeitures [5:36] in 2019 alone federal agencies made [5:39] 334 million dollars in equitable sharing [5:42] payments to state and local law [5:44] enforcement agencies in this case the [5:47] nevada highway patrol stands to gain [5:49] nearly 70 thousand dollars by taking [5:51] stephen's money [5:54] i think you're a good guy [5:57] how so how much cash is that at 100 [5:59] grand [6:00] so as you know right [6:03] i'm a vet he's a vet your vet it's not [6:05] illegal to carry currency [6:08] it does [6:09] don't make us ask some questions on why [6:12] someone has a hundred thousand i [6:13] understand why you don't trust banks [6:14] especially in this day and age right now [6:16] steven keeps his savings in cash maybe [6:18] that's uncommon but as the officer [6:20] acknowledges it's not illegal i have [6:22] nothing to hide for you i appreciate [6:24] that um give me a few seconds coming a [6:25] couple phone calls right [6:27] the officer first calls his superior he [6:29] interrupts that call to speak again with [6:31] the dea agent [6:38] okay i'm waiting to hear back from shane [6:40] to see if he comes out here this is a [6:43] it's a strange one but not a strange one [6:46] consensus to a search said there's money [6:48] up there we located what he says is a [6:49] hundred thousand dollars it's in a uh [6:52] uh ziploc sandwich baggie [6:54] um there's also i haven't gone into it a [6:57] bunch of wayne gearbest chain but [6:58] there's a bunch of bank receipts and [6:59] stuff in there as well [7:02] to show the the current at this might [7:04] machine hold on a second it's a shame [7:10] [Music] [7:13] around 20 minutes later the officer [7:15] superior highway patrol sergeant is [7:18] recorded on his body cam chatting with [7:20] the same dea agent who apologizes for [7:23] not being able to make it [7:25] no issues it's too easy to do an [7:26] adoption you know we contacted you so i [7:28] think everything's going to be okay um [7:30] and i'll text you a money count i forget [7:33] it'll probably be a couple hours [7:35] remember there's still no probable cause [7:38] to seize steven's money all the officers [7:40] have is a large amount of cash and cash [7:42] is not a crime but the sergeant isn't [7:44] giving up [7:46] so why why did this festival [7:50] i just don't trust them [7:52] that's just that's just my risk my [7:53] reasoning is my personal thing oh i'm [7:55] not trying to convince one [7:57] [Applause] [7:59] after questioning stephen the sergeant [8:01] speaks privately with the officer who [8:02] pulled him over [8:04] what are your thoughts chris [8:08] [Applause] [8:11] it's odd but [8:13] it's odd but it's not packed it's like [8:15] no [8:15] and he's answering the questions there's [8:17] there's receipts here and [8:19] i would like to put i would like to put [8:21] um the dog on the currency man okay the [8:24] two officers agree that stephen has been [8:26] forthcoming and has years worth of bank [8:28] receipts showing that he has withdrawn [8:30] his savings from his bank accounts but [8:32] the sergeant orders the junior officer [8:34] to put the dog on the currency [8:37] the sergeant put steven's money in an [8:39] open ziploc bag and throws the open [8:41] package to the ground on the side of the [8:43] road less than 40 yards from stephen's [8:46] car [8:56] [Applause] [9:19] positive alert [9:26] this positive alert appears to have [9:28] given the sergeant what he thinks he [9:29] needs to take steven's life savings [9:32] remember both officers have planned all [9:34] along to hand the money to the dea they [9:37] are looking for a legal justification [9:39] but numerous studies have shown anywhere [9:41] between 67 and 100 percent of u.s [9:45] currency has trace amounts of drugs for [9:48] that reason a dog alert to currency on [9:50] its own does not show the currency was [9:53] used in an illegal drug transaction [9:56] what we're going to do i believe there's [9:58] drugs [9:59] dog allergic to it [10:00] drug procedures yeah it's very common [10:03] sir we get people that are trapped in [10:05] large quantities of marijuana from [10:08] northern california to all states east [10:10] even from reno sir i can tell you right [10:12] now [10:13] i'm gonna tell you guys what's gonna [10:15] happen okay we're gonna seize it today [10:17] but that doesn't mean we're the final [10:19] judgment on it it's gonna go through the [10:20] dea okay so the va will contact you and [10:23] the dea will will uh provide you with a [10:26] means to [10:27] um [10:29] to fight it you're gonna have to provide [10:30] your pay stubs you're gonna have to [10:32] provide your other receipts and stuff [10:33] like that [10:34] okay steven now has nothing he had to [10:37] convince his brother to wire him a [10:39] thousand dollars to continue his trip to [10:41] see his [10:44] [Applause] [10:45] just doing your daughters [11:00] texas [11:18] [Applause] [11:26] after nearly an hour and a half on the [11:28] side of a highway stephen was given a [11:30] receipt for u.s currency with a number [11:33] to call the dea agent [11:36] this is all i get here that's what you [11:37] get yes sir [11:41] you're going to get noticed in the mail [11:42] as well at that address okay [11:45] i find it [11:46] even more so [11:49] concerning [11:50] that [11:52] if this could happen to me [11:54] as a combat veteran [11:56] who served overseas [11:58] in iraq and afghanistan [12:03] this could happen to anybody [12:05] after six months without his nearly 87 [12:08] thousand 000 [12:10] stephen sued the dea in federal court to [12:12] get it back [12:14] only then after the institute for [12:16] justice filed a lawsuit on his behalf [12:18] and the washington post called the [12:20] agency for a comment did they agree to [12:22] return steven's cash [12:24] steven may have gotten back his money [12:26] but his case goes on [12:28] stephen and the institute for justice [12:29] are also suing the nevada highway patrol [12:32] in state court to make sure that this [12:34] doesn't happen to anyone else [12:37] steven's situation isn't unique but he [12:39] is one of the lucky ones he will get his [12:41] money back [12:42] most victims of forfeiture don't have a [12:44] public interest law firm like ij to take [12:46] their case and if they cannot afford an [12:48] attorney and cannot figure out how to [12:50] navigate convoluted forfeiture processes [12:52] on their own the government walks away [12:55] with their property without ever having [12:57] to prove any crime [12:59] this highway robbery must end it is time [13:02] to abolish civil forfeiture [13:08] [Music] [13:20] you