Skip to content 
Stephen Lara is a former U.S. Marine who gained national attention following his involvement in a legal battle against Nevada’s civil asset forfeiture laws. His case has highlighted the controversial practice of civil forfeiture, where law enforcement agencies seize property, often without charging individuals with a crime.
When It All Began
Lara’s story began in February 2021 when he was driving from Texas to California to visit his daughters. During this trip, he was pulled over by Nevada State Troopers, who claimed he was following another vehicle too closely. What followed was a series of events that would propel Lara into a legal fight not only for the return of his seized money but also for broader reforms in Nevada’s forfeiture laws.
Was Carrying His Life Savings On Hand
At the time of the stop, Lara was carrying $86,900 in cash, which he described as his life savings, supported by ATM receipts. He had recently lost his job during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and was in the process of transitioning his life, having served his country with honor. However, after informing the officers about the cash, they brought in a drug-sniffing dog, which allegedly alerted them to the presence of narcotics. Despite there being no evidence of drugs or any wrongdoing, the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) confiscated the money and handed it over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) through the equitable sharing program, which allows federal and state law enforcement agencies to share proceeds from such seizures.
Left Him Penniless
For nearly a year, Lara went without his life savings, and authorities never brought charges against him. Only after he filed a lawsuit with help from the Institute for Justice, and as national media coverage grew, did the DEA agree to return the money. However, Lara did not stop there. He continued his legal battle, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws, which allow for the seizure of property without due process. Lara’s case argues that these laws create a financial incentive for law enforcement agencies to unjustly seize property, violating citizens’ rights under state law.
Stephen Lara’s fight has made him a powerful symbol of resistance against civil forfeiture abuses. His case has drawn widespread attention to the often-overlooked issue of how civil forfeiture disproportionately harms individuals. Although people like Lara do not engage in criminal activity, they often become ensnared in a system that allows the government to profit from their misfortune. Today, Lara continues to advocate for the rights of citizens and reform of forfeiture laws that enable such government overreach.
What Is Stategraft?
Professor Bernadette Atuahene introduced the term “stategraft” to describe a specific form of governmental corruption in which public authorities illegally extract wealth from citizens. This term reflects situations where governments or their agents unlawfully appropriate funds, either intentionally or unintentionally, in a manner that funnels resources away from individuals and into state coffers. While stategraft can take many forms, the defining feature is the systematic transfer of wealth from residents to the government without legitimate legal justification.
A Form Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
Stategraft is distinct from traditional corruption in that it is often carried out under the guise of legality or procedural norms. One common example of stategraft is civil asset forfeiture, where law enforcement agencies seize money or property from individuals without necessarily charging them with a crime. State or federal agencies often retain the funds or property, creating a direct benefit for the government. Although civil forfeiture laws aim to fight crime, especially drug-related offenses, they are also highly susceptible to abuse. When misused, these practices become a form of stategraft, where the government’s financial incentives override individual rights.
Equitable Sharing
The practice of equitable sharing is a prominent example that has come under scrutiny for promoting stategraft. In this program, state agencies seize property and transfer it to federal authorities, who keep a portion of the proceeds and return the rest to the state. This creates a direct financial incentive for state agencies to seize property even when there may be no strong legal grounds for doing so. In cases like Stephen Lara v. State of Nevada, the government seized significant sums of money without pursuing criminal charges, raising concerns that these practices prioritize government revenue over justice.
In essence, stategraft undermines the foundational principles of fairness and justice in governance, blurring the lines between lawful government action and illicit extraction of private resources. It has become a significant point of contention in legal and policy discussions, particularly in the realm of civil forfeiture and equitable sharing programs.
A Landmark Case: Nevada V. Stephen Lara
Stephen Lara’s lawsuit against the state of Nevada is a landmark case in the battle against civil forfeiture abuses. His legal action stems from a February 2021 incident in which Nevada State Troopers, during a routine traffic stop, seized his life savings of $86,900 without charging him with any crime. Lara’s lawsuit, filed with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, challenges Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws, which allow law enforcement to seize property without a criminal conviction or even pressing charges.
There is A Financial Incentive To Seize Money
At the core of Lara’s lawsuit is his claim that Nevada’s participation in the federal equitable sharing program enables state law enforcement agencies to circumvent more stringent state forfeiture laws by handing over seized property to federal authorities. Under this program, the federal agency—typically the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—retains a portion of the proceeds, while the rest is returned to the state. This creates a financial incentive for state law enforcement to prioritize seizures, often with little to no due process for the individuals affected.
Nevada Due Process Is Violated
Lara’s legal challenge is multifaceted, attacking several aspects of Nevada’s forfeiture system. He argues that the seizure of his money violated the Nevada Constitution’s due process clause, which is supposed to provide stronger protections for individuals compared to federal law. His lawsuit also contends that Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) lacks the statutory authority to participate in federal forfeiture programs like equitable sharing. Additionally, he asserts that Nevada’s laws create an unjust incentive for law enforcement to seize property without probable cause, motivated purely by financial gain.
The Court Denies The State The Motion To Dismiss
In a significant victory for Lara, the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada recently ruled that his case can move forward, denying the state’s motion to dismiss. This decision means that the court will now fully examine Nevada’s civil forfeiture practices and determine whether they are unconstitutional. The state had argued that Lara lacked standing to sue, claiming that NHP was acting as a federal agent when it seized his money and therefore should be immune from state-level lawsuits. However, the court rejected this argument, affirming Lara’s standing and the validity of his claims under Nevada’s legal framework.
How Important Of A Case This Is
Stephen Lara’s case against the state of Nevada carries significance far beyond the personal injustice he endured when law enforcement seized his life savings. His lawsuit tackles the fundamental issue of civil asset forfeiture, a controversial practice widely criticized for allowing government agencies to confiscate individuals’ property without due process. Often, as in Lara’s case, civil forfeiture occurs without any criminal charges; law enforcement can seize property based solely on suspicion, forcing innocent people into lengthy legal battles to reclaim their money or possessions.
His Case Shows How These Laws Can Be Abused
What makes Lara’s case particularly significant is the exposure it provides to the broader systemic problems associated with civil forfeiture laws, not just in Nevada, but across the United States. His legal challenge underscores how these laws can be abused by law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets, effectively incentivizing them to prioritize seizures over legitimate public safety concerns.
It Highlights How The State And Federal Government Can Take Money
The equitable sharing program, at the heart of Lara’s case, highlights how state and federal governments collaborate to exploit legal loopholes, bypassing stricter state protections against forfeiture. Under this program, local law enforcement can seize assets and turn them over to federal agencies, which allows them to keep a large percentage of the proceeds. This creates a dangerous conflict of interest, encouraging profit-driven policing rather than justice-driven law enforcement.
Could Inspire Reform In Other States
The constitutional implications of Lara’s lawsuit also contribute to its weight. By challenging Nevada’s forfeiture laws under the state’s due process clause, Lara’s case brings attention to the erosion of civil liberties when financial incentives dictate law enforcement behavior. The fact that the court has allowed his lawsuit to proceed signals that these legal issues are not only real but potentially unconstitutional. A ruling in Lara’s favor could strike down certain aspects of Nevada’s forfeiture system, setting a precedent that could inspire similar challenges in other states.
Moreover, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for reforming civil forfeiture laws nationwide. A victory for Lara would challenge the very foundation of equitable sharing programs and could lead to more stringent requirements for law enforcement agencies to prove wrongdoing before confiscating property. It would represent a significant shift in the legal landscape, protecting innocent individuals from being unjustly deprived of their assets and holding law enforcement accountable for adhering to constitutional standards of due process.
How The NHP Is Trying To Defend Itself
The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) is mounting a multi-pronged defense in response to Stephen Lara’s lawsuit, which challenges their use of civil asset forfeiture. The central theme of NHP’s defense is their assertion that they were acting within the bounds of the law when they seized Lara’s $86,900 in cash during a routine traffic stop in February 2021. The NHP is attempting to justify their actions by pointing to the federal equitable sharing program, which allows state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal authorities in seizing property under federal forfeiture laws. This program is central to NHP’s argument, as they claim that once the cash was handed over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the seizure was governed by federal law, not Nevada law.
Claim They Were Acting As Federal Agents
A key aspect of NHP’s defense is their claim that they have statutory authority to participate in the equitable sharing program and to seize property in such situations. They argue that their actions were legal because they were acting as federal agents on behalf of the DEA, and therefore their participation in the program should grant them immunity from lawsuits filed under Nevada state law. NHP is essentially asserting that, because the seizure was conducted under federal jurisdiction, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution should apply, which would preempt any state-level legal claims against them. This line of reasoning is intended to shield NHP from the allegations that they violated Nevada’s due process protections.
States That There Is No Case Since He Got His Money Back
In addition, NHP has argued that Lara lacks standing to bring the lawsuit, claiming that because the DEA ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges or civil forfeiture proceedings, there is no ongoing controversy or future threat of forfeiture against Lara. They have attempted to downplay their role in the seizure, stating that since the money was returned to Lara months later, the matter should be considered resolved. By framing the case in this way, NHP is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds, rather than addressing the substantive constitutional issues raised by Lara.
Need Help? Call Us Now!
Do not forget that when you or anyone you know is facing a criminal charge, you have us, the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, by your side to help you build the best defense case for you. We will work and be in your best interest for you and we will obtain the best possible outcome that can benefit you.
Our team is here to explain your trial, guiding you through the criminal justice process with clarity and support every step of the way. If you’re navigating the complexities of criminal charges and the court system seems daunting, reach out.
Therefore, do not hesitate to call us if you find yourself or someone you know that is facing criminal charges unsure about the court system. We will work with you to give you the best type of defense that can help you solve your case. It is vital to have someone explain the result of the charge to you and guide you in the best possible way.
Here at the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, our professional and knowledgeable criminal law attorneys build a defense case that suits your needs, aiming for the best possible outcome to benefit you.
At the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, we offer a free consultation at your convenience. You can schedule your appointment via Zoom, Google Meet, email, or in person. We provide comprehensive advice and information to help you achieve the best possible result in your case.
Call us now at (281) 810-9760.
Other Related Articles
Las Vegas Under Fire: Survival Of Campus Shooting
When Bail Fails: Understanding Bail Forfeiture
Asset Forfeiture In Drug Possession Cases
Nevada To Arizona: The Astonishing Two State Shooting Spree
Forfeiture Versus Restitution In Texas Criminal Law
FAQs on Stephen Lara’s Civil Forfeiture Case
Stephen Lara, a former U.S. Marine, had his life savings seized by Nevada State Troopers during a traffic stop in 2021. The officers claimed the cash was suspicious, even though Lara was not charged with a crime. His case has become a landmark in challenging civil forfeiture practices.
Lara argues that Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws violate due process, allowing law enforcement to seize property without criminal charges. His lawsuit targets the equitable sharing program, alleging it incentivizes profit-driven seizures that bypass state protections.
The Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) claims they were acting within federal jurisdiction under the equitable sharing program, granting them immunity under the Supremacy Clause. NHP argues Lara lacks standing as the DEA returned his money.
The equitable sharing program allows state agencies to hand over seized property to federal authorities, often bypassing stricter state laws. Lara’s case argues that this program incentivizes law enforcement to prioritize profit over due process.
Lara’s case has highlighted the potential abuses of civil forfeiture, particularly under the equitable sharing program. A ruling in his favor could lead to stricter requirements for law enforcement, reducing the profit-driven motivations behind seizures.
