Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Civil Liberties

Judge OK's Cops Decision to Seize Truck, Cash from NFL Player Letroy Guion

Nick Gillespie | 2.23.2015 1:53 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Via the Twitter feed of Mike Hewlett comes a disturbing bit of asset forfeiture news.

Back on February 3, Letroy Guion, who plays for the Green Bay Packers, was pulled over in his hometown of Starke, Florida, for swerving while driving. Police ultimately seized $190,000 in cash and took his truck under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act:

Under Florida law, if your assets are believed to be tied to a certain crime, law enforcement agents can take them. From there, a judge will decide if the seizing agency is granted the forfeiture of the property in question.

The important thing, of course, is that cops get money to buy stuff.

"People who deal drugs, they have no rules and a lot of money. Police departments, sheriff's offices, they have a lot of rules and not a lot of money," says Starke Police Chief Jeff Johnson.

Guion's truck is currently sitting in the Starke Police Department's impound lot, along with several other vehicles they've seized from people they say broke the law.

"If we can prove it was either they benefited from the narcotics, the money comes from the narcotics, or it was being used to purchase narcotics," Johnson says.

Johnson says he would like to put some of the money towards replacing three police cars that are more than 10 years old.

The judge overseeing the case has ruled that "carrying such a large amount of money itself is strong evidence that currency was intended to be furnished in return for drugs."

As it happens, reports Pro Football Talk,

Guion has a job that legitimately pays him $1 million a year. And Guion reportedly has proof via bank statements that the money comes from cashing his Packers paychecks. If Guion is cashing his paychecks and carrying thousands of $100 bills around with him, that makes him foolish with his money, but it doesn't make him a criminal. And concerns about police abusing civil asset forfeiture laws are real.

Guion has 20 days to respond to the judge's ruling. In the mean time, police will hold onto his cash and truck. 

Guion is facing a weapons charge (he told police he had a licensed, unloaded gun in his car) and a felony pot charge. He's out on bail in the meantime. If I were him, I'd start shopping for a new set of wheels.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Judges Find Federal Child Porn Sentences Are Much Longer Than Jurors Consider Just

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

Civil LibertiesWar on DrugsCivil Asset Forfeiture
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (81)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Paul.   10 years ago

    The important thing, of course, is that cops get money to buy stuff.

    Those flashbangs that blew off the kid’s face aren’t free, you know.

    1. Almanian!   10 years ago

      +1 ready, FIRE, aim

  2. Dances-with-Trolls   10 years ago

    Civil asset forfeiture laws may be the single clearest example the the BoR is dead. These sorts of stories make my blood boil.

    1. Almanian!   10 years ago

      yep – this so much

    2. Hyperion   10 years ago

      And what do they rely upon 99% of the time?

    3. Andrew S.   10 years ago

      It takes Olympic-level mental gymnastics to come up with the justifications for the legality of asset forfeiture that courts have. It’s incredible.

      1. Jordan   10 years ago

        Fortunately, the brilliant legal minds on the Supreme Court are on the case!

    4. Zeb   10 years ago

      the BoR is dead

      Well, badly injured anyway. The first and second amendments are probably as strong as they ever have been, if still far from ideally enforced. And the third does pretty well. The fourth is highly disrespected and in danger of becoming meaningless. Pleading the fifth seems to work if you do it properly with a lawyer present, though I don’t know what happened to the grand jury requirement. Why doesn’t that apply to states? The sixth seems to be mostly respected, though there is some bad “war on terror” stuff going on there and some trials don’t seem very speedy to me. The seventh seems to be OK, the eighth is not well respected in my view, but others might disagree on what is “cruel and unusual”. And the 9th and 10th are of course completely ignored.

      1. Virginian   10 years ago

        second amendments are probably as strong as they ever have been, if still far from ideally enforced.

        Before 1934 you could order a BAR from the Sears catalog. You could buy any weapon you wanted, anywhere, anytime. From antiques to the latest military hardware, even stuff that the military wouldn’t buy for years.

        The 2nd was in dire straits after 1934’s NFA, 1968’s GCA, the 1986 Hughes Amendment, and the 1994 Assault Weapon’s Ban. Things are better now from a constitutional POV with Heller, but we still have a long way to go.

        1. Zeb   10 years ago

          Yeah, that one is a bit of a stretch in some ways. The second was horribly abused and ignored for most of the 20 th century. My point was that with Heller, etc. the 2nd is being used to improve things somewhat, which hasn’t happened in the past. Before 1934 it was much better for gun rights. But that was because that’s just how things were rather than because the 2nd amendment was enforced.

          1. Virginian   10 years ago

            But that was because that’s just how things were rather than because the 2nd amendment was enforced.

            Uh no. The courts intervened several times pre Miller to reverse unconstitutional legislation

            http://www.guncite.com/court/state/33ar557.html

            If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

            Control of weapons is probably the tyrant’s oldest tool to control the population. It didn’t start with 20th century leftists.

    5. Kahlua Akbar   10 years ago

      Civil asset forfeiture laws may be the single clearest example the the BoR is dead.

      Asset forfeiture pre-dates the Bill of Rights. It’s part of libertarians’ beloved common law.

  3. Paul.   10 years ago

    The judge overseeing the case has ruled that “carrying such a large amount of money itself is strong evidence that currency was intended to be furnished in return for drugs.”

    I wonder what the Judge’s cut will be?

    1. Dances-with-Trolls   10 years ago

      I’ll assume the judge drinks and drives a lot or has a kid that smokes weed.

      1. Hyperion   10 years ago

        And? Laws are for the little people. Now get back in line, peasant.

    2. Hugh Akston   10 years ago

      The judge also ruled that Guion is black, so whatever money he was carrying probably either came from selling drugs or was going to be used to buy drugs.

      1. Hyperion   10 years ago

        No worries, that Lorretta Lynch will personally intervene for him as soon as the racist Teabaglicans approve her reign of terror.

        1. Almanian!   10 years ago

          “Hand Over Your Shit!” is the new “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!”

          1. Hyperion   10 years ago

            Just imagine Hillary as POTUS with this woman as AG. Please save us invisible sky gods, because I don’t think that anything else can.

          2. Stickler Meeseeks   10 years ago

            I need this on a tee shirt.

      2. Mickey Rat   10 years ago

        I don’t think the law enforcement apparatus cares about any color other than green in asset forfeiture cases.

        1. kevrob   10 years ago

          I don’t think the law enforcement apparatus cares about any color other than green in asset forfeiture cases. – Mickey Rat

          They probably care about gold, too.

          Is there some hope Cheesehead Nation will be seriously offended about this?

          Iggles fans should watch out. Silver isn’t gold, but PDs will snatch that, too.

          Kevin R

    3. Almanian!   10 years ago

      the Judge’s cut

      *furiously dials Jim Beam with new marketing idea*

      1. Bobarian (hyphenated-american)   10 years ago

        The wiskey they wipe up off the floor?

  4. Hyperion   10 years ago

    If Guion is cashing his paychecks and carrying thousands of $100 bills around with him, that makes him foolish with his money, but it doesn’t make him a criminal

    Umm, according to FL, THE FREEST OF THE FREE STATES EVER, it does.

    1. Zeb   10 years ago

      No, it makes the cash a criminal. Florida doesn’t care if he is a criminal.

    2. Ted S.   10 years ago

      And if you go back to the original seizure, the cops put the money into small piles so that they could make the cash cover multiple tables’ worth, and look like more than it was.

  5. Gene   10 years ago

    Police departments, sheriff’s offices, they have a lot of rules and not a lot of money,” says Starke Police Chief Jeff Johnson.

    Extra points for delivering this with a straight face.

    1. Suthenboy   10 years ago

      Yeah, that seems like a pretty straightforward admittance of theft to me.

      “They have money and we don’t, so we take it.”

    2. Mickey Rat   10 years ago

      The words “So” and “what” come to mond when hearing that excuse.

    3. Spartacus   10 years ago

      Well, they *do* have a lot of rules, there are just no consequences for ignoring them.

      Seriously, though, Letroy, if you’re listening: why the hell are you even setting foot in Starke? Take your millions and get your family the hell out of that shithole.

  6. Dances-with-Trolls   10 years ago

    OT: Jazz Shaw is still a fucktard.

    While there were obviously exceptions, this seemed to keep civilization on a relatively even keel. As long as the majority of the citizens were not only honest, but on the side of the cops, law enforcement could remain effective. It was the system which maintained the thin veneer of civilization upon which we all rely. But as Moran writes, the times they are a changing. When people brazenly march down the avenues of cities calling for the death of law enforcement officers and police are slaughtered in ambush scenarios, making temporary “heroes” of their killers in the media, the world becomes a more dangerous place.

    Sadly, this is not some hyperbolic warning about a possible future. The bell has already been rung and police are being hunted for sport. And we can’t reverse this tide by chasing individual criminals or hearing pontifications from politicians. If we want to restore and maintain order there needs to be a renewal of community support for the police, not just as individuals, but for what they represent.

    1. Hyperion   10 years ago

      there needs to be a renewal of community support for the police, not just as individuals, but for what they represent.

      Well you know, I’m just throwing this out there, but if they would stop being murderous thugs, maybe that would happen?

    2. Almanian!   10 years ago

      Huh. That approaches criminality in its stupidity.

      Fuck him.

    3. Suthenboy   10 years ago

      That person should never be allowed access to a keyboard again.

      What a fuckin’ idiot.

    4. Zeb   10 years ago

      Sadly, this is not some hyperbolic warning about a possible future.

      Yes it is.

      The bell has already been rung and police are being hunted for sport.

      No it hasn’t. Sometimes I wish it were so. If anything it is surprising that more police aren’t murdered just for being police.

      And we can’t reverse this tide by chasing individual criminals or hearing pontifications from politicians. If we want to restore and maintain order there needs to be a renewal of community support for the police, not just as individuals, but for what they represent.

      Fuck off, pig. That is 100% up to the police. You don’t get people on your side by acting like you are better and more important than eveyone else.

  7. Hey Nikki!   10 years ago

    “Police departments, sheriff’s offices, they have a lot of rules and not a lot of money,” says Starke Police Chief Jeff Johnson.

    Sometimes I sort of wish I lived in the cops’ world.

  8. np   10 years ago

    “People who deal drugs, they have no rules and a lot of money. Police departments, sheriff’s offices, they have a lot of rules and not a lot of money,” says Starke Police Chief Jeff Johnson.

    lol.

    Johnson says he would like to put some of the money towards replacing three police cars that are more than 10 years old.

    Dude, have you seen those new Dodge Chargers? It would sooo sweet if we could replace our Crown Vics without having to fill out all the paperwork and deal with the county and shit.

    1. KDN   10 years ago

      Give them credit for good taste. I love the look of the new Chargers.

  9. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

    These are some weapon’s grade stupid cops. They could have swiped the earthly goods of poor and middle class people all day every day and few other than us and the IJ would, but there’s no way swiping goods from a rich black football player is going to be ignored by the media.

    1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

      *insert a “care” in the above statement* Why, oh why can’t we have an edit feature?

    2. KDN   10 years ago

      The unfortunate reality is that the arguments against it are going to be “ZOMG RACISM” instead of “asset forfeiture and the drug war are really bad, priority-warping policies.”

      1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

        True, however it still a stupid move on the cops part.

      2. Rhywun   10 years ago

        there’s no way swiping goods from smoking dope by a rich black football player is going to be ignored by the media

        FTFY

      3. sarcasmic   10 years ago

        Yep.

      4. Zeb   10 years ago

        I’ve noticed that once they realize what asset forfeiture is, a lot of people see how completely wrong it is. I think a lot of people think it is taking the property of people who have been convicted and are quite surprised that it can be applied against people who aren’t even charged with anything.

        1. sarcasmic   10 years ago

          Part of the stated intention of asset forfeiture is that it stops criminals from using ill-gotten money to hire their legal defense, forcing them to depend on a public pretender. This increases the chance of conviction, but we already know they’re guilty or they wouldn’t have had all that stuff for the government to steal. Allowing criminals to defend themselves with an attorney of their choice paid for with their own money is being soft on crime.

          1. kbolino   10 years ago

            Allowing criminals the accused to defend themselves with an attorney of their choice paid for with their own money is being soft on crime.

            I know that’s what you meant, but it still bears pointing out. You’re not even “a criminal” (legally speaking) until after the conviction.

            1. sarcasmic   10 years ago

              Legally speaking, yes. Practically speaking, you’re guilty until (and many times after) you prove your innocence.

        2. sarcasmic   10 years ago

          Besides that, they didn’t pay taxes on that money. So it belongs to we the people, otherwise known as the government.

          1. Zeb   10 years ago

            Which makes it all the more fucked up when they don’t even charge the forfeitee with any crime.

            I don’t think I ever heard that intention stated (though nothing would surprise me when it comes to this shit). Clearly that is one of the reasons prosecutors like it, though.

            they didn’t pay taxes on that money

            Except when they did. Like this football guy appears to have done.

      5. Ted S.   10 years ago

        On the Packer board where I regularly post, people finally started to get that perhaps asset forfeiture might not be a good idea, but only after somebody other than me posted a link to the Huffington Post. Non-lefties like Radley Balko don’t get a hearing with them. (And then there was the time I posted about Bou Bou Phonesavanh, and people got angry at me, not the pigs.)

        They still thought that Guion might be dealing and ZOMG THAT’S TEH EVUL!!!1!11!

        1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

          I know right? Because no one who can afford it, ever stocks up on their favorite intoxicants. Like if I buy a carton of cigarettes rather than a single pack or a case of whiskey rather than one bottle it MUST mean I intend to resell them.

  10. Rich   10 years ago

    The judge overseeing the case has ruled that “carrying such a large amount of money itself is strong evidence that currency was intended to be furnished in return for drugs.”

    *** looks at Federal Reserve Note dollar bill ***

    “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE”

    190,000 times this.

    1. Rhywun   10 years ago

      190,000 times this.

      Then they’ll just pin loosie sales on you. Nice life you have there, too bad if something happens to it.

      1. Rich   10 years ago

        Probably.

        Still, the “strong evidence” is bullshit.

        And “not having donated blood for a year itself is strong evidence that the blood was intended to be furnished in return for drugs.”

        1. Zeb   10 years ago

          It is total bullshit. Yes people buying drugs need a lot of cash. But a lot of people still buy cars, real estate and various other expensive things with cash.

        2. Andrew S.   10 years ago

          But, if you have donated blood in the past year, either:

          a. You did it at a place that pays you. You’re obviously using that money for drugs.

          b. You donated to the Red Cross. You’re going to trade the movie ticket, cookies and Gatorade you’re given for drugs.

          1. Zeb   10 years ago

            Someone should really cut out the middle man and just start a blood bank that gives out drugs for blood.

  11. Drake   10 years ago

    The chief knows Guion and knows his family.

    If he knew me and my family, he would know his house would be burning down soon.

    1. Zeb   10 years ago

      I’m sure that would work out well for you.

      1. Drake   10 years ago

        Exactly what people about to steal $200K from me should be saying to each other sarcastically.

  12. Aerozppln   10 years ago

    The comments on this story at Pro Football Talk make me feel like I’m on the reason boards.

    1. Andrew S.   10 years ago

      I’d been scared to look. PFT commenters are usually sub-Youtube commenters when it comes to intelligence.

      1. Ted S.   10 years ago

        Mike Florio is a Vikings fan, so that might explain it.

        1. Pope Jimbo   10 years ago

          That explains it Ted. LeTroy was a Viking before he left for Green Bush. That must be why Florio likes him.

  13. creech   10 years ago

    How does “swerving while driving” constitute probable cause to search his car and find said money? Aside from FYTW clause, of course.

    1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

      Because it’s your civic duty to fuck up your rims in the state provided potholes.

      1. Drake   10 years ago

        Florida has potholes?

        My wife’s car is getting 2 new wheels and 4 tires right now thanks to New Jersey’s potholes.

        1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

          Dude, everywhere the state is responsible for maintaining its precious roadz has potholes. Some of the worst potholes I have ever seen were in Mississippi, because you know how much snow and ice Mississippi gets.

          1. Zeb   10 years ago

            The state (well mostly towns) actually does a pretty good job of filling pot holes. Of course, they also pave the same roads over and over while completely ignoring others (except to fill pot holes).

            1. BuSab Agent   10 years ago

              Which state?

      2. Pope Jimbo   10 years ago

        Or you could just pay the $128 to the state.

        http://www.myfoxtwincities.com…..ng-pothole

        So the city hires and incompetent who does a bad job. This results in huge pot holes and then the cops start citing drivers for avoiding them. Wish I paid taxes over there.

    2. Zeb   10 years ago

      In some places with rough roads and hard winters, not swerving while driving is more evidence of impairment than swerving while driving.

  14. SIV   10 years ago

    he had a licensed, unloaded gun in his car

    Where did he have it “licensed”?

    It sure as shit wouldn’t be in Florida or Wisconsin. Unknown to liberal media types like Nick, the federal government doesn’t license them either.

    1. Kahlua Akbar   10 years ago

      Probably referring to his Minnesota CCW license (not honored in FL).

  15. JeremyR   10 years ago

    I don’t understand the weapons charge. You don’t need to register guns in Florida, and while there are some restrictions on it being in a car, generally you can have them.

    It has to be either “securely encased” or not immediately available for use”, and in this case, if it’s unloaded, I think it would qualify to the latter.

    Speaking as someone who lived in Florida and had a gun in his car….

    Also Florida is one of the most generous conceal carry states, maybe that’s what you mean by licensed. In that case, the gun charge, really, really doesn’t make sense.

    1. Kahlua Akbar   10 years ago

      Guion’s CCW permit is from MN (which FL does not honor).

      The photo at ESPN does show an ordinary “clasping” hard plastic handgun case, so I’d think he’d meet the definition of “securely encased” if it was closed with the gun inside.

  16. Alan@.4   10 years ago

    Guion may well be that proverbial “horses ass”. That having been said, Civil Asset Forfeiture is and remains Theft Under Color of Law, without regard to such “good ends” as officialdom might put the money or valuables to.

  17. Kahlua Akbar   10 years ago

    What I find ridiculous about this is that the cops are claiming they can take his money because he was planning on using it to buy drugs in the future.

    In all the civil forfeiture cases I’d heard of, the claim is that the money was used in, or obtained via, past illegal activity.

    1. Hicks   10 years ago

      Why else would a black man go to Florida, to get a suntan.

      Of course it was drugs. Or something else illegal.
      He had a gun, there’s your proof right there.

  18. tommytomhan   10 years ago

    These programs that allow this need to be outlawed by congress. There has been way too many news articles of the police stealing legal money from citizens.

  19. AD-RtR/OS!   10 years ago

    I’d be shopping for a very good attorney, and a new personal manager who he should listen to – even though at 27, he shouldn’t still need a nanny, but apparently does.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect

Eric Boehm | From the July 2025 issue

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'

Jacob Sullum | 6.6.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!