At first blush, the state of Iowa's seizure of $76,000 in cash from California resident Perry Pickering during a routine traffic stop in February 2013 seemed like a slam-dunk case — despite the fact that he wasn't charged with a crime.

The trooper allegedly noted a strong smell of marijuana, found a hidden plastic sack of cash in the vehicle and caught Pickering in conflicting stories about the origins or ownership of the cash, documents state. Pickering also allegedly admitted he was being paid to transport the money for someone, the forfeiture application filed by the state shows.

If true, those facts would generally be considered enough for officers to conclude the money was connected to illegal activities, allowing them to legally confiscate it in a process that has padded Iowa law enforcement budgets by $43 million in the past six years.

But video obtained by The Des Moines Register of the 68-minute stop initiated on Interstate 80 for a tinted window violation suggests that key facts in the court documents are either false, omitted from public record or taken out of context.

The case is an example of someone giving up rather than fighting for seized property, despite flaws in the state's case, in a forfeiture system that requires property owners to prove they did nothing wrong.

Among the apparent discrepancies:

• State Trooper Joshua Lahr never questions Pickering on video about the alleged odor of pot referenced in court documents.

• Pickering is initially issued a warning for tinted windows and told he is free to go. But immediately after his release, Lahr begins asking more questions, specifically whether Pickering was transporting any large amounts of money.

• Pickering's story on video is consistent, despite what court documents indicate: He tells Lahr that he was helping his elderly parents relocate, that they had sold a bulldozer and logging truck from a family business and that the proceeds would be used to help purchase a modular home in California. Pickering tells Lahr that his father, a war veteran, didn't want to deposit the money into a checking account because it would be factored into his retirement benefits, and his father would likely lose health coverage. Neither explanation about his father was included in court documents.

• Court documents say the money was "hidden," but video shows Pickering being cooperative and telling officers the money is in a suitcase.

And, after finding no drugs or illegal paraphernalia in Pickering's possession, the state tested the bills seized from the vehicle for traces of drugs. Trace amounts of cocaine were found on 15 of the 3,384 bills, according to the court file.

Pickering contested the seizure, saying the money was lawfully obtained, and he can prove it with transactions. He noted a University of Massachusetts study that showed about 90 percent of U.S. money is tainted with traces of cocaine. And he said he signed an asset form disclaimer under duress, saying the officers threatened him with incarceration if he did not comply with their request to sign.

He ultimately lost his appeal after failing to respond within 20 days to a state response to his appeal.


Pickering declined to comment, saying he feared future harassment from law enforcement agencies. Lahr did not return a message seeking comment.

Sgt. Scott Bright, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, declined to speculate why allegations contained in court documents against Pickering did not match up with what is shown in the videos.

Read or Share this story: