Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
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.
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
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
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.
