Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Executive wrote:
WOW! SEVEN pages and it appears there are two camps...one who thinks all cops are on the take and looking to harass good clean everyday 'citizens'. Then there are the others who actually read the case, or have worked the other side of the field and really know what happens in 'real life'. I believe the guy was a low down crook and deserves to lose his "hard earned" money. That said, I also think the police need additional training on how to avoid this type of fiasco in the future. Often, we get caught up in the heat of the moment and become singularly focused instead of looking at the big picture. I know what I would have done in the same situation as I'm sure mssmith1199 is too..the outcome would have been significantly different but you wouldn't have known about it because it wouldn't have been newsworthy.....Dennis

Well, because of instances like this one, Nevada has a New Bill that makes sure that a situation like this one, and other similar ones, do not happen again. I think everyone, me included, can appreciate a situation where the officer has to make a split second decision. This case was not one of those instances.
This traffic stop evolved over a period of time with officers that did not follow the rules which resulted in nothing but a waste of time for all involved. Prior to this new bill, each individual agency could keep what they seized and use as they saw fit.
As I said, the owner of the RV may well have been a crook, but because of the officer's actions we may never find out. He had no previous criminal record which could mean he was very skillful at avoiding getting caught, he just became a criminal, or he was just an innocent citizen doing exactly what he claimed.
The officer that made the first stop could not see the driver so he was basing his stop on his hunch that an RV, with out of state tags, in January, on I80, was out of place so he came up with a reason to stop him. He used the driving slow in the left lane as his reason. I am sure that all of us have had our RV in the passing lane, with a few vehicles behind us, for a period of time before we could pull back in to the right lane. It happens and I know that I have also driven that same highway during the Winter months, with several thousands in cash in the coach.
In any case, because of incidents like this, Nevada S. B. 138 makes numerous changes to what property is subject to seizure. Basically it appears that there must be a crime involved that relates to the property being seized. In other words, a typical traffic infraction does not constitute grounds to seize property unless that traffic stop leads to a conviction of a crime. IN this case, no conviction, no crime, no seizure. This becomes effective Oct 1, 2015.
If you read the new S.B.138 it appears that prior to this change, local agencies did not have to share their bounty or even notify the state about property seized. Now all seizures of property must be reported to the state and become part of the general fund. It also says that the State must return any seized property within 5 days if the subject is acquitted of any criminal charges.
This was not meant to indicate that I do not have respect for law enforcement officers and the difficult job that they do but I do believe that officers have certain rules that they must follow, just like we all have certain rules that we must follow.
Apparently the Nevada legislature agreed that the seizure rules in place at this time needed to be changed and that was done.
I assume that the former law enforcement officers on this forum still agree that none of us should allow an officer to inspect our coach during a normal traffic stop. :B
Thanks to all that participated for keeping things civil, whether you agreed with the judges decision or not.