Court Cases

Sebastian Filutowski sold his Camaro in a legitimate transaction and received payment in cryptocurrency, which he converted to U.S. dollars. LVMPD later froze and seized more than $50,000 from his bank account through its Cyber Investigative Group policy. Under that policy, detectives can seek a warrant without notifying the property owner, classify the person as a “secondary victim,” and transfer the money to another person without filing a forfeiture case or providing an adversarial hearing. Filutowski filed a lawsuit seeking the return of his property and an order blocking law enforcement from using property seizure practices that deny people due process. The district court ordered LVMPD to return his money but denied his request for a permanent injunction. Filutowski appealed that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We filed an amicus brief, in partnership with Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, because law enforcement should not be allowed to bypass due process through internal policies that function like civil forfeiture while avoiding forfeiture safeguards. In our brief, we argue that LVMPD’s Cyber Investigative Group policy has the same real-world impact as civil forfeiture: a person loses access to their property and must fight the government to recover it. We also argue that the harm occurs when the property is taken, not only after someone has exhausted every possible legal remedy. Returning money months later does not erase the violation or the cost of being forced to litigate for basic constitutional protections.

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.

Doneale Feazell was just 18 years old when he was accused of committing a homicide and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention. Alongside the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing an 18-year-old to die in prison violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. Nevada’s Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” Nevada prohibits punishment that is “cruel or unusual.” Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Nevada courts should do the same. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Feazell to die in prison is unconstitutional.

Despite only being 19 when accused of murder, Johnny Baggett was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his unconstitutional detention and raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that prevented him from proving his innocence. In conjunction with the Juvenile Law Center, we filed an amicus brief in support of his petition, arguing that sentencing a 19-year-old to life without parole violates the Nevada Constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. The Nevada Constitution provides stronger protections than the federal standard. While the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," Nevada prohibits punishment that is "cruel or unusual." Courts in other states have relied on similar language to strike down life without parole sentences for older adolescents, including those up to age 20. Research shows that young people in this age group share key developmental traits with those under 18, including a greater capacity for growth and change. Because of this, states across the country are expanding protections, including access to parole and resentencing. Given this growing body of research and legal precedent, Nevada courts should recognize that sentencing young people like Baggett to die in prison is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed this case on behalf of eleven individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Rio Hotel. On August 19, 2018, our plaintiffs were having a birthday celebration at the Rio Hotel. Each of the 34 guests in attendance that evening is Black. LVMPD, aided by Rio staff, stormed in with no warrant and no reason to believe that any crime was being committed. Despite having no reasonable suspicion, LVMPD officers handcuffed and searched every single guest in attendance. Each guest was made to sit in the hallway of the Rio handcuffed with no access to food, water, or restroom facilities for up to 6 hours. LVMPD alleged that the birthday party was a “gang party,” but no guest was arrested for any criminal gang activity. We’re suing to end LVMPD’s racially discriminatory practice of indiscriminately and unlawfully detaining and searching individuals in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.