Civil Forfeiture and Dismissed Criminal Case Spark HighStakes Appeal to Nevada Supreme Court

Image: https://www.globalnewslines.com/uploads/2025/12/1764777106.jpg

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA - December 3, 2025 - A new appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court challenges what attorneys describe as "policing for profit" in a case where local authorities seized more than $21,000 in cash during an investigation that included allegations of criminal conduct later dismissed, while the government held on to the money and attempted to avoid any accountability for the seizure.

Image: https://www.globalnewslines.com/uploads/2025/12/8f911ea4755e01d6e5492bb96fc85b3b.jpg

The appeal arises from a civil forfeiture action in which police executed a search warrant tied to nondrugtrafficking criminal accusations, arrested a resident, and then pursued a second, latenight warrant to justify taking cash stored inside the home. No one was ever charged with any offense related to the money itself, and the underlying criminal case-including charges brought under Nevada's criminal code-was ultimately dismissed.

"Civil forfeiture was never meant to be a substitute punishment when prosecutors cannot or do not secure a conviction," said Chandon S. Alexander (Criminal Defense Lawyer Las Vegas), lead appellate counsel in the case. "When serious charges are dropped, the financial punishment should not quietly live on through forfeiture. Nevada's Constitution demands better protections for innocent property owners."

According to the appellate brief, the government's forfeiture complaint named only the cash and the arrestee, omitting the actual earner and owner of the seized funds and failing to provide proper notice, even though public records showed joint ownership of the home. When both residents appeared in court, challenged the constitutionality of Nevada's civil forfeiture laws, and filed counterclaims for damages and constitutional violations, the City allegedly deployed delay tactics, resisted a ruling on the merits, and then returned the money months later while insisting that all remaining claims should be dismissed as "moot."

The appeal asks the Nevada Supreme Court to:

*
Confirm that people whose property is seized in civil forfeiture cases may bring compulsory and permissive counterclaims for constitutional violations, tort damages, and "ClaimforDelivery" remedies-and that those claims survive even when the government later returns the property.

*
Recognize that the Nevada Constitution provides heightened "innocent property owner" and due process protections beyond federal law, especially where serious allegations are dismissed but the financial consequences of the investigation remain.

*
Hold that special damages, including attorneys' fees reasonably incurred to recover seized property, are available when properly pled and proven at trial.

*
Reject the idea that authorities can seize first, litigate strategically, then erase their misconduct by quietly returning money to avoid adverse rulings and potential sanctions.

The case highlights a wider national debate over civil forfeiture, in which critics argue that lawenforcement agencies have a builtin financial incentive to seize cash and property and then use procedural maneuvers to shield those seizures from independent judicial review. The Nevada appeal frames this not only as a policy concern, but as a direct violation of Nevada's guarantees of due process, property rights, and the presumption of innocence.

"This is about drawing a constitutional line," Alexander added. "If the government can keep or leverage a person's savings after criminal charges-even serious ones-are dropped, without giving that person a full and fair day in court, then due process becomes an empty promise. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to close that loophole."

The appellants are asking the Court to reverse the lower court's dismissal, reinstate their counterclaims, and clarify that Nevada's civil rules and forfeiture statutes must be read together to protect innocent owners and deter abusive enforcement practices.

About Spartacus Law Firm

Spartacus Law Firm is a Las Vegasbased litigation and appellate practice focused on criminal defense, civil rights, and complex constitutional matters. The firm represents clients in highstakes cases across Nevada, with an emphasis on challenging government overreach, protecting individual liberties, and shaping precedent in the state's appellate courts.

Media Contact:

Chandon S. Alexander, Esq.

Spartacus Law Firm 400 S. Seventh Street, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Phone: (702) 6601234

Email: chandon@spartacuslawfirm.com

Website: https://spartacuslawfirm.com [https://spartacuslawfirm.com]

Location: https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m8!1m3!1d14578.74012207627!2d-115.1409815!3d36.1646195!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x80c8cfd8bc7bb4eb%3A0x88b0b3658a3742cf!2sSpartacus%20Criminal%20Defense%20Lawyers%20Las%20Vegas!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sau!4v1764730397697!5m2!1sen!2sau
Media Contact
Company Name: Spartacus Law Firm
Contact Person: Chandon S. Alexander, Esq.
Email: Send Email [http://www.universalpressrelease.com/?pr=civil-forfeiture-and-dismissed-criminal-case-spark-highstakes-appeal-to-nevada-supreme-court]
Address:400 S. Seventh Street, Suite 100
City: Las Vegas
State: Nevada
Country: United States
Website: https://spartacuslawfirm.com

Legal Disclaimer: Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. GetNews makes no warranties or responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you are affiliated with this article or have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article and would like it to be removed, please contact retract@swscontact.com



This release was published on openPR.