Sebastian Filutowski didn’t know why his bank account stopped working last year.

The Florida man received no help from bank employees until he received an unusual directive in December: Contact a detective in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

“I was like, ‘What the heck?’” Filutowski recalled in an interview. “I don’t know what’s going on here.”

It turned out that one month earlier, Filutowski had sold his car for more than $57,000 worth of cryptocurrency, but the funds he received were traced to a kidnapping and robbery in Las Vegas of about $4 million in stolen crypto. All of a sudden, Filutowski, a 34-year-old who runs an ophthalmology clinic, was engulfed in a criminal investigation in a state he hasn’t visited in decades. 

His bank account was frozen without an official warrant, and Metro detectives seized the $57,000 that Filutowski received for his 2018 Chevrolet Camaro. 

His saga has turned into a monthslong legal battle that reached the Nevada Supreme Court last week. Filutowski is arguing that Metro’s conduct violated the Nevada and U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

Metro declined to comment.

It’s the first in a series of cases that Filutowski plans to file. He has taken initial steps before the high court related to Metro’s cryptocurrency investigation policy, as well as the department’s refusal to provide him with records pertaining to the case.

The lawsuits will test Nevada law enforcement’s power to seize property believed to be involved in a crime, known as civil forfeiture. The process consists of two parts: seizure of property allegedly linked to criminal activity, and forfeiture, where the government seeks to keep the seized property. In the 2024 fiscal year, Metro seized more than $1.3 million worth of property, while $2.5 million of property was seized statewide.

It will also test the legality of warrants that are served out of state, as well as law enforcement’s authority to freeze bank accounts without a warrant.

“Police need a warrant before invading and freezing an American’s bank account. This must be the law in the United States in 2025,” Filutowski’s lawyer, John Fortin, said in a statement. Fortin previously represented a Carson City family in a forfeiture case before the high court.

Metro has repeatedly argued in court that it acted within the bounds of the law. The department argues it withheld records because it did not initially clear Filutowski as a suspect, which also gave officers the right to freeze his bank account without a warrant and seize his money. 

The law in question states warrants must “be directed to a peace officer in the county where the warrant is to be executed.” The appeal claims this law requires the warrant to be served in Clark County because that is the jurisdiction of the judge who approved it. But Clark County Judge Jacob Reynolds ruled it was legal because Filutowski's bank, Truist, has appeared as a plaintiff in Nevada courts. Truist does not operate in Nevada.

Reynolds also ruled Truist provided “voluntary consent” to freeze his account, making it legal. Filutowski worries that could allow any bank to consent to freezing a client’s bank account.

Civil rights lawyers worry the case could create a precedent on property seizures even in cases not involving cryptocurrency. 

“If you put a diamond in a safe deposit box, and the government said, ‘OK, bank, you can't give that back to someone. I don't have to get a warrant to do it. I don't have to explain why. I don't have to offer you probable cause’ … that's a dangerous precedent to have,” said Chris Peterson, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada.

Although Filutowski got back the money for the car after he filed a lawsuit, the saga has upended his life. For the first time, he had to borrow money from his family, including plane tickets to visit a friend who was dying. He suffered an initial legal defeat last week to be reimbursed for his attorney fees, which are in the six figures.

Filutowski described himself as a conservative who is typically supportive of law enforcement. But that support has wavered in recent months.

“It really stinks to be so helpless in this situation and basically have people walk all over you and do whatever they want,” he said. “It was pretty violating, made me pretty angry, made me definitely lose trust in the government and in law enforcement.”

Left in the dark

In late November 2024, Metro Detective Shannon Brown sent a letter to Truist requesting it freeze Filutowski’s bank account. It went through. About one week later, Brown’s request for a warrant to seize the $57,000 was approved by the Clark County district attorney’s office and a district court judge.

For about a week after learning that his bank account had been frozen, Filutowski said he had no idea what was going on. 

“Being in the dark is worse than knowing even if it’s something bad. It's really frustrating and angering,” he said. “Why am I being stonewalled by these people? This doesn't make any sense.”

He eventually spoke with Brown, explaining that he had no knowledge of the alleged crimes in Las Vegas. He provided video footage of his transaction and also directed detectives to an online advertisement for his car.

But Filutowski was still considered a suspect. This is in part because Brown wanted him to file a police report saying his car was stolen. The detective believed this would be appropriate because Filutowski was paid in funds linked to a crime, but Filutowski said he didn’t believe his car was stolen and he didn’t want to make a false report. Brown found this to be suspicious.

Soon after, the freeze on Filutowski’s bank account was lifted, but the money remained in Metro’s custody. At this point, Filutowski said he thought the detective understood he was not a suspect, but in the coming weeks, he would be repeatedly denied information about the case. 

Filutowski said he sought a copy of the warrant from a host of agencies: Metro, federal banking regulators, Truist, Metro’s police union and the Nevada Office of the Attorney General. He never received it.

He soon filed a lawsuit, later learning that Metro had not ruled him out as a suspect. Because other suspects in the case were juveniles, the warrant to seize his bank account was not considered a public record.

Eventually, Filutowski secured a victory in court requiring Metro to return the $57,000. But his other legal efforts, including gaining access to the warrant for the seized money, were unsuccessful.

It’s made him more distrusting of the judicial system.

“If you polled a thousand people on the street, not even 10 people are going to say, ‘You shouldn't get your money back and you shouldn't have your fees covered,’” he said. “Knowing that and then going into court and not getting rulings in your favor, it's really confusing and disappointing.”

What the case means

If the high court rules in Metro’s favor, the case could have significant effects on police power in Nevada, particularly as it relates to freezing bank accounts.

“The implication would be that police officers and Nevada essentially can call up any bank and freeze anyone's bank account,” said Randy Fiedler, the amicus chair of Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a group of defense lawyers focused on improving the judicial system.

Peterson from the ACLU said that without clarity from the court, this could lead to not just a slippery slope surrounding police power but “a cliff.”

“If the government can just send a letter to a bank and just say, ‘Freeze this money and don't give it back to the person that owns it,’ I mean, that is a vast expansion of police powers,” Peterson said.

It is also a test of what should be considered probable cause to issue a warrant and the limits of Nevada judges’ jurisdiction. 

“As a general matter, courts only have legal authority over their area,” Fiedler said.

Even with the case’s outcome in doubt and the money back in his possession, Filutowski says the whole thing has left him deeply unsettled.

“You live in America, you think you own the things you own, the things that are yours,” he said. “I was being denied access, possession, and information about money I've earned. That really ticked me off.”

Updated on 7/15/25 at 1:36 p.m. to clarify that Filutowski runs on ophthalmology clinic.