A Marine veteran responds to criticism regarding the use of a federal loophole by police to confiscate his money.

A Nevada judge ruled that state police cannot utilize a federal loophole to confiscate individuals' possessions, as was done by highway patrol when they seized a Marine Corps veteran's entire savings.

"Stephen Lara, the plaintiff, stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that the fight is not over. He emphasized that there are many other individuals who are still going through the civil asset forfeiture process. Lara also pointed out that there are stories that are not being reported in other states."

Lara's journey from Texas to California in February 2021 was interrupted when an officer with the Nevada Highway Patrol stopped him, accusing him of following a semi-truck too closely and driving under the speed limit, as shown in body camera video.

A video shows the officer asking Lara to exit his car and inquiring about his shirt, daughters, and if he had any "large amounts of United States currency in the vehicle."

Lara said he was traveling with cash.

He stated that he doesn't trust banks, so he keeps his own money. During a search of his car, officers discovered $87,000 in a plastic bag, along with bank receipts and paystubs.

Lara was informed by officers that a dog had "alerted" to the money, implying it was linked to drugs. As a result, they confiscated his funds and turned them over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) through civil asset forfeiture, which enables the government to seize and retain property suspected of being associated with criminal activity, even if no arrests are made.

Lara was never charged with a crime.

The DEA views forfeiture as a powerful tool to dismantle the financial infrastructure of drug trafficking and money laundering organizations globally, targeting both small-time couriers and high-ranking drug cartel leaders.

The government must provide clear and convincing evidence that property is linked to a crime before it can be forfeited in Nevada, which is one of several states with restrictions on civil forfeiture.

A program called "equitable sharing" enables state and local law enforcement to collaborate with federal agencies on forfeitures and avoid limitations. Following federal officials' confiscation of the property, the state agency can receive up to 80% of the proceeds.

"Lara stated that she finds it disgusting when a department or agency is incentivized to gain assets or more revenue."

Lara, with the aid of the Institute for Justice, was able to retrieve his money, but he has persisted in filing a lawsuit for damages and preventing police from seizing other individuals' funds.

Last week, Nevada Second Judicial District Judge Connie J. Steinheimer ruled that the state legislature has not explicitly authorized the NHP to use the federal process for forfeiture, which has less stringent standards.

Nevada's civil asset forfeiture statutes cannot be undermined by NHP through participation in the federal equitable sharing program, according to Steinheimer.

The Institute for Justice anticipates the state will challenge the court decision.

Lara stated that he believes that no genuine change will occur "until qualified immunity is abolished." This principle typically safeguards law enforcement officers and other government entities from being held liable for infringing upon individuals' rights.

"Lara stated that taxpayers are funding these lawsuits, and there is no accountability. Until officers and departments are directly penalized, there will be no motivation to stop."

Lara highlighted that although he is a veteran, his experience in the military doesn't make him more significant than others who have had their funds taken away. However, his service has given him a unique perspective on the matter.

"He stated, "This is personal to me because it's disheartening when a country pays you a retirement check for your service, yet works with local state police departments to try to seize the very money they pay you.""

Teny Sahakian contributed to this report.