Nevada Department of Public Safety v. Lara (Amicus)

  • Filed: April 22, 2026
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
  • Latest Update: Apr 22, 2026
Blue-toned graphic featuring the ACLU of Nevada logo on the left and the case title ‘Nevada Department of Public Safety v. Lara’ on the right. The background shows the flashing light bar of a police vehicle against a blurred nighttime scene.

In 2021, Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP) stopped Lara while he was driving through Nevada to visit his daughters in California. During the stop, officers seized over $85,000 in cash, which was his life savings. Lara was not arrested, charged with a crime, or issued a ticket. Instead of following Nevada’s civil forfeiture process, NHP routed the money through the federal adoption and equitable sharing program. Through that program, state and local law enforcement agencies can transfer seized property to the federal government and later receive a portion of the proceeds.

Under civil forfeiture, the government takes people’s property, sometimes even when they have not been convicted of a crime. This invites abuse, and so Nevada law includes protections for property owners facing civil forfeiture, including court oversight, deadlines, and a higher burden of proof. Those protections are imperfect but help limit abuse. Federal civil forfeiture does not have the same protections.

We filed an amicus brief in support of Stephen Lara. In our amicus brief, we argue that law enforcement should not be able to evade Nevada’s civil forfeiture laws through federal adoption or equitable sharing. Civil forfeiture already creates dangerous financial incentives because agencies can benefit from the property they seize. Those incentives are even stronger when agencies can use the federal system to avoid Nevada’s already limited safeguards and keep more of the money they take.


The ACLU of Nevada does not represent the parties in this case, and our involvement is limited to filing an amicus curiae brief, also known as a “friend of the court” brief, which allows us to share legal arguments, policy expertise, and broader civil liberties perspectives that may assist the court in making its decision. We file these briefs in cases that may have significant implications for constitutional rights and civil liberties, even when we are not directly representing the client or parties named in the lawsuit.

Case Number:
90943
Attorney(s):
Jacob T.S. Valentine, Esq., Christopher Peterson, Esq.