MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Dec. 01, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Lots of cash equals guilty

No charges, but the money is gone

Is it illegal to carry cash in this country?

In some places, apparently, yes. The mere possession of currency is taken to be evidence that you've done something wrong. Consider the case of Las Vegas trucker Eduardo Arencibia, who was pulled over in 2007 on Interstate 70 in Kansas by a Shawnee County deputy for straying outside the lane markings.

Most Popular Stories
  • J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
  • EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie
  • LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy
  • LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?
  • LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'
  • LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money
  • EDITORIAL: Hiking permits
  • LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity




    • A search of the cab turned up a duffel bag and suitcase that contained a total of $552,000.

    The county kept the cash. Mr. Arencibia was charged with transporting drug money.

    In 2008, a judge dismissed the charges. But a second judge later ruled the county had a right to confiscate the cash under civil forfeiture statutes.

    Civil forfeiture has been around since colonial times and is often used today by the authorities to take property they believe was used or acquired in the commission of a criminal offense. Under civil forfeiture, the asset itself is considered guilty and its owner must prove the asset is "innocent" in order to get it back.

    It's a frighteningly powerful tool that can be easily abused and should be used extremely sparingly, if at all.

    In Mr. Arencibia's case, the money was never taken to a lab to be tested and was later put back into circulation. The only evidence the money was connected with drugs was the reaction of a police dog.

    So the police, for all intents and purposes, stole the cash.

    "There is nothing illegal about possessing money," an attorney for Mr. Arencibia told The Associated Press. "There was not evidence to support he had done anything illegal."

    Civil forfeiture cases are notoriously difficult to fight successfully. So instead of seeking a return of the $552,000, Mr. Arencibia is suing Shawnee County for $1 million, alleging officials violated his civil and constitutional rights during the traffic stop.

    During the Clinton administration, Congress passed modest reform of the federal asset forfeiture statutes after numerous horror stories surfaced. If Mr. Arencibia's plight teaches us anything it's that those reforms didn't go far enough -- and that you had better faithfully observe all traffic laws if you're in possession of a large amount of cash.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 42 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    fredster wrote on December 01, 2009 10:57 PM: "... but Arencibia clearly has no right to the cash."

    Yes, after all, it's guilty until proven innocent, right? ...err..wait a minute, maybe I have that backwards...


    Tom, Burbank wrote on December 01, 2009 06:35 PM: R-J, here's a link for you, your editors and readers to a story with a few more facts about Arencibia:

    http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-11-27/trucker_fights_550_000_seizure

    My favorite sentence: "Arencibia said he was offered $10,000 to ferry the currency from New Jersey to Las Vegas."

    The cops aren't clean either, as there are discrepancies in the amount collected and what was deposited in the bank. Each side is dirty, but Arencibia clearly has no right to the cash. Let him sue and prove the money is legally his.


    Cow-patrick is grouchy wrote on December 01, 2009 04:51 PM: He has been now that his little false religion of global warming has been debunked. Poor gullible sheep.


    Ken wrote on December 01, 2009 02:53 PM: An answer to Kent...because Harry doesn't have to pay off his mistresses family!


    Joe C wrote on December 01, 2009 02:21 PM: As much as I hate a process that can legally steal for people without proof of a crime.
    There is NO doubt of the possibility that Mr. Arencidia is a scum bag money mule for the drug cartels. (yes, I wrote possibility and no doubt on purpose)

    Although I’ve heard that the trucking industry can be lucrative, maybe he was a driver for Schneider?
    I hear they pay more than the rest of the trucking industry?

    The forfeiture laws are a disgrace but I won’t shed one tear for this person, hopefully his real bosses treat him the same as they treat others in their industry that screw up.
    He can get thru all of this if he keeps his head!


    Kent wrote on December 01, 2009 02:02 PM: If all you need to be guilty of something is to have lots of cash then how has DIRTY HARRY kept all of his.


    John F wrote on December 01, 2009 12:21 PM: Unbelievable, the stridency that some here today use to defend the government's seizure of an individual's property without the person in question being convicted of a crime.

    And these people have the nerve to tell me that I am what is wrong with this country!?

    Winston Smith is spot on in his post from 10:04 a.m. Our constitution - in particular the Bill of Rights - is what makes our country great. It is very distressing to me that so many people are willing to cheer the government on as they destroy the fourth and fifth amendments in the name of "protecting" us from drugs, terrorism, or whatever the fear du jour happens to be. This is insidious and it has to stop.

    I don't agree with the RJ editors on very much, but in their defense of an individual's constitutionally protected freedoms they have been a consistent and sure voice. They are absolutely correct in this case.

    Those who would allow the government to seize a person's property on mere suspicion are the ones who are being un-American. They should be ashamed.


    Pay the Piper wrote on December 01, 2009 11:42 AM: If Mr. Arencibia wins a million dollar lawsuit, does he have to give back $552,000 to the drug dealers and keep the rest himself?


    Green Dragon Regular wrote on December 01, 2009 11:20 AM: Seizure and forfeiture laws are nothing more than end runs around the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. The reason they exist is to short-circuit the use of assets as a resource for suspected criminals- for legal representation or extra-legal countermeasures. This prosecutorial and executive branch vampire is aided and abetted by a sympathetic judiciary, nothing more, nothing less, and should be driven by litigious daylight to its coffin and a legislative stake driven through its bloodless heart.

    All of you so-called "small government" types defending this practice should be ashamed of yourselves and have hereafter reduced your credibility through your lack of intellectual integrity. You are the most insidious threat to our Constitution.


    winston smith wrote on December 01, 2009 11:18 AM: patrick, glad to see you in my alternate universe also. Anyway, this has been going on since the 80's, so it's not a Bush v. Obama v. Clinton thing, so let's not drag the false left/right paradigm into this.

    Government tyranny, no matter which administration is running the show, is still tyranny.


    Read All Comments