The Wyoming Supreme Court is reviewing whether the state can retain $54,226 seized from a 79-year-old man during a traffic stop, despite his conviction for possessing a misdemeanor amount of cocaine, Cowboy State Daily reports.
The case raises questions about asset forfeiture laws and the proportionality of penalties in drug-related offenses.
The case began in October 2023 when Rawlins police stopped Ronald Mickulin of Wamsutter, Wyoming, for a broken taillight. During the stop, officers discovered 0.3 grams of cocaine in Mickulin’s vehicle, along with psilocybin mushrooms and suspected marijuana. A subsequent search revealed $54,226 in cash hidden in the car.
Mickulin later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor cocaine possession, receiving a 20-day jail sentence, probation, and a $250 fine. However, the state also sought to confiscate the cash, claiming it was connected to drug trafficking.
The Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) had reportedly linked Mickulin to drug dealing in Carbon County prior to the stop. According to court filings, Mickulin admitted during an interview that half of the cash came from selling drugs, while the other half was from cashing out his 401(k). The state argues the money represents proceeds from a drug conspiracy and is subject to forfeiture.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kellsie Singleton has stated that the amount of cash is disproportionate to Mickulin’s legitimate income, which consisted of a $1,400 monthly Social Security check. She cited bank transactions and witness testimony describing Mickulin as a drug dealer as further evidence supporting the state’s claim.
Mickulin’s attorney, Andrew Holcomb, argues that the forfeiture of his client’s retirement savings would be excessive and unconstitutional. He emphasized that the seized drugs had a street value of only $200–$250, far less than the $54,000 the state seeks to claim.
Mickulin’s defense contends there is no substantial evidence of a drug conspiracy, noting that the state did not charge him with any felony offenses. Holcomb likened the state’s actions to targeting a retiree on a fixed income rather than a significant drug trafficker. He also pointed out that the funds included retirement payouts, Social Security checks, and insurance proceeds.
This case highlights broader debates over civil asset forfeiture, a legal process that allows law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity. Critics argue such practices can disproportionately impact individuals accused of minor offenses and may violate constitutional protections against excessive fines.
Proponents of forfeiture argue it is a necessary tool for disrupting drug operations and deterring criminal activity. In Mickulin’s case, the state insists the cash is tied to drug sales and should be confiscated accordingly.
