HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Civil Liberties (Group) » Wyoming Supreme Court won...

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 11:17 AM

Wyoming Supreme Court won't hear appeal of $470K seizure

Wyoming Supreme Court won't hear appeal of $470K seizure

BEN NEARY Associated Press
Updated 14 hrs ago

CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from a man who contends it was unconstitutional for the state to seize $470,000 in cash from him and then seek to forfeit it on the grounds that it was drug money, all without charging him with a crime. ... Chief Justice E. James Burke on Tuesday dismissed an appeal from Robert Miller, of Des Plaines, Illinois.

Authorities say a state trooper seized the cash after pulling Miller over in 2013 for speeding on Interstate 80 in far western Wyoming. ... The state never charged Miller with a crime and waited about a year to bring a civil court action to forfeit the money under the state’s Controlled Substances Act, asserting that the cash was related to the illegal drug trade.

State District Judge Joseph B. Bluemel early this year denied a request from Miller to dismiss the forfeiture case on the grounds that the state was violating his constitutional rights. Miller appealed that decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court, but Burke ruled this week that the appeal was improper because the entire forfeiture case hasn’t wrapped up yet in Bluemel’s court.
....

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead in 2015 vetoed a bill passed by the state Legislature that would have required the state to secure a criminal conviction first before seeking to forfeit cash and other property it believes may have been involved in illegal activity. Mead, a former state and federal prosecutor, said in his veto message that he was satisfied the forfeiture process was working well in the state.

5 replies, 1582 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wyoming Supreme Court won't hear appeal of $470K seizure (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2016 OP
Adsos Letter Sep 2016 #1
Warpy Sep 2016 #2
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2016 #3
Adsos Letter Sep 2016 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #4

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 11:38 AM

1. WTF?!

They didn't charge him with anything but kept the money?

How is that different from armed robbery?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adsos Letter (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 12:09 PM

2. It isn't.

The corrupt conservative court upheld these laws plus others that have effectively gutted the fourth amendment in the name of keeping the white kiddies off drugs.

I have no doubt that these laws will eventually be found unconstitutional if this country hangs together long enough to return to sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adsos Letter (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 12:12 PM

3. The people making the seizure wore badges.

Your disloyalty has been noted, comrade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 05:46 PM

5. Armed Robbery

Armed with the authority of the State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 12:24 PM

4. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (Republican)



Why bother with a "criminal conviction first before seeking to forfeit cash and other property"?


Bill of Rights??? Why should common people have those?

Amendment V
No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread