Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Dec. 10, 2012 | 1:13 p.m.
CARSON CITY — A federal appeals court panel is giving a man another chance to prove in Las Vegas that he is the legal owner of $999,830 seized from the back of his rental car in August 2008.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that District Court Judge Kent Dawson used the wrong standard in denying the claim that Michael Simard was entitled to the cash
Simard, who has a Canadian driver’s license, was stopped for speeding on Interstate 15 by the Nevada Highway Patrol. He said he was on a sightseeing tour and gave police permission to search the vehicle.
Patrol Sgt. Eric Kemmer searched the vehicle and found the money bundled in stacks in a duffle bag in the trunk. Simard initially denied any knowledge of the money, which was confiscated, was given a warning for speeding and released.
The government filed a complaint in January 2009 seeking forfeiture of the money, arguing there was evidence Simard was somehow involved in drug smuggling or carrying drug money.
Simard challenged the claim, asserting he is the rightful owner of the cash.
The panel of the appeals court held that Simard’s “unequivocal assertion of ownership” was enough to have further evidence produced at the early stages of the case to determine his claim.
The panel sent the case back to Dawson for further hearings on the ownership issue.
Unusual case, but have to agree that the Feds haven't produced much of a case in this.
He was given a warning and then released! and now they want to claim he was somehow involved with a phantom drug deal or just drug money...
The burden of proof always falls on the accuser.... so where their proof other than a plucked from the air excuse.
This is why I never turn money or guns over that I find when I purchase storage units, You will never see it again they always make a claim of some sort and you are to be punished. Yes I have found several thousand dollars not including precious metals in units I think belong to drug dealers that went to jail.
Some young prosecutor is trying to make a name for himself by setting up this case. How does anybody know that it is from an illegal activity. Maybe the guy does not trust banks.
So, ask him where the money is from?
The crime committed is the one where the government takes whatever they think they are entitled to.
"Simard . . . was stopped for speeding on Interstate 15 by the Nevada Highway Patrol. He said he was on a sightseeing tour and gave police permission to search the vehicle."
If he gave permission he was either ignorant or intimidated into it. Good thing for him the Fourth Amendment covers all police victims, not just citizens.
"Unusual case, but have to agree that the Feds haven't produced much of a case in this."
tigermike -- unfortunately for Simard he got Dawson, who stretches the law completely out of shape to favor the Golden Rule. You know, whoever has the gold makes the rules. Like the banks. Pray your removed foreclosure case doesn't get him.
"So, ask him where the money is from?"
TomD -- exactly why would that be anybody else's business?
"If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)
Does he have to pay taxes on the money as soon as he proves its his.
What was the reason for searching the trunk in the first place? He was speeding and the police have no reason to search his car. This whole thing smells funny and so far the stink is coming from our so called law enforcement.
Not only do the police get to keep everything they claim is from "drug" money, they get to spend it on anything else they want to. There is no accountability for this money.
That is one of the reasons you see so many police Drag Racing cars and police hot rods.
Another reason why the police fight legalization laws. They would loose all their TOY money.
"TomD -- exactly why would that be anybody else's business?"
----
Technically it's not. Not different then if I was caught speeding and the officer asked in a friendly manner "where are you going so fast" and I replied "non of your business" instead of "going to visit a friend". First response ensures a ticket. Second response and he says "OK, have a nice day and slow down a little"
Sometimes it's better to be honest than a jerkwad. No ticket.
"Not different then if I was caught speeding and the officer asked in a friendly manner "where are you going so fast" and I replied "non [sic] of your business" instead of "going to visit a friend"
TomD -- apples and oranges again. Speeding would be an obvious violation the officer observed, giving him probable cause for the stop. Unless the trunk was already open and its contents visible to all, its contents were protected by the Fourth Amendment.
"Indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the State's hostility to it." -- United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876 (9th Circuit, 1980), Judge Kennedy dissenting
He denied ownership of the money. Find the rightful owner.