Mother with 4 kids stopped with $237,000 cash in Rosenberg

[RAT Patrol]

The bold part is the problem. Not only is it not legal, it is being challenged and struck down all over the places. This isn't about siding with the cartels against the people. This is about siding with the people and their right to property.

Every day we hear about case after case after case where civil asset forfeiture is being abused. From a lady in New Jersey who sold her grandmother's house for cash to a young man in Texas who was given cash by his grandfather to buy cars at an auto-auction to start a business. A hot dog dealer having all his personal cash taken from his wallet to in New York, kids off the street having cash taken out of their wallets, even five or ten dollars, just because they 'could' be drug dealers.

None of those cases the people were charged or convicted of drug crimes. Yet, in those cases, the innocent citizens had to pay thousands to lawyers and in court costs to get their own money back. In New York, it became so abusive, a class action lawsuit against the police resulted in millions of dollars in penalties against the police as it was shown they were abusing the system and unlawfully taking the money. 

Taking liberty from people under the guise of protecting them has never, ever worked out well in the history of mankind. It always leads to more authoritarian states and less liberty.

You are wise to be concerned about abuse of power.  But putting asset forfeiture aside, unless she can account for that money on her IRS reporting, she is going to jail.  Period.

[RAT Patrol]

The replies continue to bear-out your assertion.

Into tyranny we will gleefully go - pointing out enemies of the state and applauding their punishment because we are guilty simply because the authorities say we are.

"If you are not guilty then you have nothing to hide".  "If you are not guilty then you should patiently agree to have your property seized".

We have already crossed the Rubicon into the despotism this people will cheerlead.

Liberty be damned.

It has no meaning with this people anymore.

All obeisance to the state and men running for office shall be our gods now.

I agree with you in principle but I would not apply it here.  This one is easy.  She has either reported that kind of money on her tax reporting documents or she is a criminal.  You have to account for your money.  That is not tyranny.  That's being an honest citizen.

[Smokin Joe]

We don't have the facts here, there is not enough to make a judgement, we can just as easily assume,

Law Enforcement knows this is money from criminal enterprise, if it is cartel money, it can mean anything from murder to human trafficking, drug smuggling and so on. Maybe the dog smelled methamphetamine on the money, maybe the lady was legitimately stopped.

Yet, if all this happened, some people would just send her on her way? No dice.

Almost every $100 bill in the US, with the exception of those fresh from the presses, has traces of cocaine or another drug on it. You have no idea where the currency in your pocket has been, nor what it has been used for, from some stripper's thong to snorting coke to buying coffee for some homeless person to the collection basket at church to all of those places in its lifetime. The more bills, on average, the greater the number of milligrams of drugs--simple math. You don't know the money in your pocket wasn't used for a drug deal in its history.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree with you in principle but I would not apply it here.  This one is easy.  She has either reported that kind of money on her tax reporting documents or she is a criminal.  You have to account for your money.  That is not tyranny.  That's being an honest citizen.

Not so fast. She has until April 15.  Accounting for it on tax documents only applies if it is income. If those were savings, nope, no accounting necessary.

[the_doc]

@AbaraXas

Forfeiture is Reasonable, and It Works
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 2, Spring 1997   
By Stefan D. Cassella
May 01, 1997

Asset forfeiture has become one of the most powerful and important tools that federal law enforcement can employ against all manner of criminals and criminal organizations -- from drug dealers to terrorists to white collar criminals who prey on the vulnerable for financial gain. Derived from the ancient practice of forfeiting vessels and contraband in Customs and Admiralty cases, forfeiture statutes are now found throughout the federal criminal code.

Why do forfeiture?

Federal law enforcement agencies use the forfeiture laws for a variety of reasons, both time-honored and new. Like the statutes the First Congress enacted in 1789, the modern laws allow the government to seize contraband -- property that is simply unlawful to possess, like illegal drugs, unregistered machine guns, pornographic materials, smuggled goods and counterfeit money.

Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. For example, if drug dealers are using a "crack house" to sell drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, the building is a danger to the health and safety of the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its use time and again for the same purpose. The same is true for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into Southern California, or a printing press used to mint phony $100 bills.

Continued: https://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works

As a Constitutional conservative, I submit that the guy's argument is completely asinine.  (Sadly, I'll bet most Trumpers think it's okay.  This is one of many reasons why I sat out the election.)   

[TomSea]

Circumstances could be similar, dog used in this one too, comparable amount of money:

Border Patrol Agents Seize $290K in Cash Headed South

 Border Patrol agents in southern California seized nearly $300,000 in “illicit cash” from a suspected smuggler headed south.

The incident occurred at about 10 a.m. on Monday morning when Border Patrol agents assigned to the San Clemente Border Patrol Station stopped a 2015 Nissan Altima headed south on Interstate 5 near Oceanside, California. A K-9 agent alerted to the presence of suspicious materials in the trunk of the sedan. A search of the vehicle by Border Patrol agents revealed a sealed 5-gallon bucket of paint, information obtained by Breitbart Texas from U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials stated.

The agents opened the suspicious paint bucket and discovered six vacuum-packed bundles of cash. A count of the cash revealed the total amount to be $290,000. Agents suspect the cash represents the proceeds of the sale of illicit drugs.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/21/border-patrol-agents-seize-290k-cash-headed-south/

They arrested and seized the vehicle in this case. Still, somewhat similar circumstances, asset seizure. Besides the cash, I see no other contraband, weapons, drugs, etc.

[RAT Patrol]

Is there a reason, other than being a large amount of cash in Texas, to seize this money? Why was the driver stopped? Why was the dog turned loose to sniff the car? Is there ANY probable cause?

We have a Constitution to protect the rights of the accused, but Civil Asset Forfeiture skirts those rules by accusing the item seized of a crime, and assuming it is guilty. The burden of proof of innocence (anathema to the American system of jurisprudence and clearly in violation of the Constitution) has been transferred to the owner, to prove they did not do something wrong. Sorry, there, Tom, but the hardest thing is to prove you did not do something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why the founders placed the onus on government to prove guilt to that standard.
In the absence of such proof, the property should revert to the owner and within a reasonable time.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hates (yes, one thing I DO hate) drug trafficking and what it has done to this country more than I do, but we have laws we should enforce, and the Constitution tops the list. If we start taking away rights and substitute that for police work, we become a police state.

She was stopped for a traffic violation.  A sniffing dog is probably routine in that area.  The dog is what gave them probable cause.  I'm for protecting people against an abusive government.  I'm not for playing stupid.  Let's say the dog was a bomb sniffing dog and they found a bunch of explosives.  A quarter million dollars is that kind of flag.  She should still get due process and the money back quickly if she is innocent.  Probability of innocence is .000000000000000000001.  Honest people carry that kind of cash in a brinks truck if not in a bank.

[TomSea]

@AbaraXas
As a Constitutional conservative, I submit that the guy's argument is completely asinine.  (Sadly, I'll bet most Trumpers think it's okay.  This is one of many reasons why I sat out the election.)

So you are a Constitutional Conservative, the writer's arguments are bad and you make an attack on Trump supporters but offer no other reasoning.   Thanks for the jollies.

  We were really intellectually stumped there.

 

We must not be worth the time.

Or a cowardly argument.

@the_doc

Well, I'll just call your argument, stupid.

Got that love.

[Smokin Joe]

@AbaraXas
As a Constitutional conservative, I submit that the guy's argument is completely asinine.  (Sadly, I'll bet most Trumpers think it's okay.  This is one of many reasons why I sat out the election.)

Note in the arguments, there is an establishment of the use of the asset in a crime. In practice, the assumption is that because the asset exists in the hands of an individual, it somehow must be the result of criminal activity--not the same thing as taking a car they found to be full of drugs--but taking the car because it is assumed to be a drug car, or assuming money is drug money, or that plane was used to smuggle whatever--or even more stretched, that it was a benefit purchased with the profits from unproven illicit activity.

When things were going good and money was rolling in at the height of the oil boom, I was cautioned to not let my personal accounts exceed six figures by folks at the bank I had done business with for decades. It trips a flag, especially when there was a boom on and the anus breaths on national teevee were braying about drug activity in the oil patch (which brought in all sorts of undesirables to a small community, something the area is still recovering from). Before that, we had a small army or people from all over interested in working hard and making high five and six figure incomes. The TV 'specials' were like a "criminals wanted" ad.

[RAT Patrol]

Not so fast. She has until April 15.  Accounting for it on tax documents only applies if it is income. If those were savings, nope, no accounting necessary.

If she is dealing in that amount of money then she had to report it on her 4th quarter reporting Sept. 15.  If it was savings, she had to fill out documents at the bank.  You cannot deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash without reporting it.  If she did it in small amounts to avoid reporting, she will go to jail just like Hastert did.  That is called "structuring" and it is illegal.  Even a bank and its employees can get in big trouble for not reporting it.  $250,000 is a LOT of cash.  That would have required a BUNCH of reports if it ever went in and out of a bank.  It would have required one HEFTY quarterly tax payment if it was just income.

If she sold her own property to acquire that cash and so it was money reported years earlier, well....then she will have to account for who bought the items in order to prove it.  This is not a $25,000 car sale.  This is a quarter of a million dollars in cash riding around in the back of her car.  There was no search until the skilled dogs alerted them to probably cause.  Totally legal.

[TomSea]

Is there a reason, other than being a large amount of cash in Texas, to seize this money? Why was the driver stopped? Why was the dog turned loose to sniff the car? Is there ANY probable cause?

We have a Constitution to protect the rights of the accused, but Civil Asset Forfeiture skirts those rules by accusing the item seized of a crime, and assuming it is guilty. The burden of proof of innocence (anathema to the American system of jurisprudence and clearly in violation of the Constitution) has been transferred to the owner, to prove they did not do something wrong. Sorry, there, Tom, but the hardest thing is to prove you did not do something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why the founders placed the onus on government to prove guilt to that standard.
In the absence of such proof, the property should revert to the owner and within a reasonable time.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hates (yes, one thing I DO hate) drug trafficking and what it has done to this country more than I do, but we have laws we should enforce, and the Constitution tops the list. If we start taking away rights and substitute that for police work, we become a police state.

Yes, the driver was stopped over a traffic situation, the article tells us that.

The border patrol has those stop booths anywhere from 30 to 90 miles from the border and so on. They search cars. So, I guess that's a police state too. Some states even have booths for entering the state as well.



Didn't realize that this was such a symptom of a police state.

[INVAR]

I agree with you in principle but I would not apply it here.  This one is easy.  She has either reported that kind of money on her tax reporting documents or she is a criminal.  You have to account for your money.  That is not tyranny.  That's being an honest citizen.

I read a story about Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland, who had $17,900 seized by police in a routine traffic stop in a case in which no charges were ever filed against them. They sued for recovery of their money, and a federal court found that they lacked standing to sue for possession of their own assets.

So I do not buy or trust the state in a corrupt system we now have ruling us with the kind of power people here are asserting they have a right to impose because of the 'appearance' of wrongdoing.

Wake me when the Clintons have to make an accounting for all the money they raised with their foundation.

Then we can talk about justice and tax reporting and honest citizenship.

[RAT Patrol]

So you are a Constitutional Conservative, the writer's arguments are bad and you make an attack on Trump supporters but offer no other reasoning.   Thanks for the jollies.

  We were really intellectually stumped there.

 

We must not be worth the time.

Or a cowardly argument.

@the_doc

Well, I'll just call your argument, stupid.

Got that love.

How about this.

I don't like Trump AT ALL.
I find most of his supporters are rude hypocrites, demanding one set of rules for Trump and an entirely different set for everyone else.
I do think asset forfeiture can be abused by a greedy and corrupt government.
BUT I think this lady is oh so totally guilty of at least some kind crime.  She is entitled to due process and nothing I know so far makes me think she will not get it. 

[Smokin Joe]

If she is dealing in that amount of money then she had to report it on her 4th quarter reporting Sept. 15.  If it was savings, she had to fill out documents at the bank.  You cannot deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash without reporting it.  If she did it in small amounts to avoid reporting, she will go to jail just like Hastert did.  That is called "structuring" and it is illegal.  Even a bank and its employees can get in big trouble for not reporting it.  $250,000 is a LOT of cash.  That would have required a BUNCH of reports if it ever went in and out of a bank.  It would have required one HEFTY quarterly tax payment if it was just income.

If she sold her own property to acquire that cash and so it was money reported years earlier, well....then she will have to account for who bought the items in order to prove it.  This is not a $25,000 car sale.  This is a quarter of a million dollars in cash riding around in the back of her car.  There was no search until the skilled dogs alerted them to probably cause.  Totally legal.

I did not say it wasn't legal with the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed, but I did say I have a Constitutional objection. If it was 25K the dogs would likely have alerted on the traces of drugs on that currency as well. But we are still proving innocence, not criminal activity. AFAIK, it isn't against the law to have 250K in cash. But that does not mean the lucky LEO who finds it will not steal it from you. How did the dog get to sniff the car? "Random (Papers, please) checkpoint? Since when did Americans put up with being pulled over without probable cause to fish for probable cause?

Oh, MADD. Those who surrender essential liberty for security will have neither.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a concept that has been around for a long time.

[RAT Patrol]

I read a story about Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland, who had $17,900 seized by police in a routine traffic stop in a case in which no charges were ever filed against them. They sued for recovery of their money, and a federal court found that they lacked standing to sue for possession of their own assets.

So I do not buy or trust the state in a corrupt system we now have ruling us with the kind of power people here are asserting they have a right to impose because of the 'appearance' of wrongdoing.

Wake me when the Clintons have to make an accounting for all the money they raised with their foundation.

Then we can talk about justice and tax reporting and honest citizenship.

Yeah.  That was a terrible injustice.  But this lady with a quarter million in cash is guilty as sin.  She is still entitled to representation and due process and all of that.....but mark my words.  She is big time guilty.  It is never a valid argument to say that because the Clintons (or whomever) are guilty that therefore no one else should be held to account.  The right argument is that they too she be held to account.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, the driver was stopped over a traffic situation, the article tells us that.

The border patrol has those stop booths anywhere from 30 to 90 miles from the border and so on. They search cars. So, I guess that's a police state too. Some states even have booths for entering the state as well.



Didn't realize that this was such a symptom of a police state.

Thirty to 90 miles from the border? Why not have them at the border? How far inland is far enough? How far is too far? Kansas? Nebraska? Anywhere? DO these people just materialize 60 miles in from the line? Get real.

[RAT Patrol]

I did not say it wasn't legal with the 'i's dotted and 't's crossed, but I did say I have a Constitutional objection. If it was 25K the dogs would likely have alerted on the traces of drugs on that currency as well. But we are still proving innocence, not criminal activity. AFAIK, it isn't against the law to have 250K in cash. But that does not mean the lucky LEO who finds it will not steal it from you. How did the dog get to sniff the car? "Random (Papers, please) checkpoint? Since when did Americans put up with being pulled over without probable cause to fish for probable cause?

Oh, MADD. Those who surrender essential liberty for security will have neither.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a concept that has been around for a long time.

I am not for giving up liberty either.  Neither do I think we are required to be blind and stupid.  It may or may not be related to drugs.  But $250,000 in cash is definitely going to end up about tax evasion.  The fact that it was in the back of her car means it is also probably about an illegal commerce of some sort.  This will not be hard to figure just by looking at her tax returns.   Every arrested criminal is innocent until proven guilty.  She will get her day in court.  If you can bet on the outcome, don't bet on her innocence.  There is no reasonable explanation other than criminal activity.

[TomSea]

Thirty to 90 miles from the border? Why not have them at the border? How far inland is far enough? How far is too far? Kansas? Nebraska? Anywhere? DO these people just materialize 60 miles in from the line? Get real.

+1 8772275511  Tell them that. There is their number.

Get Real, why any kind of border controls? Why even a border. Why even any border checks.

That has been the libertarian platform before, if one is taking it from what they say. 

[Smokin Joe]

If she is dealing in that amount of money then she had to report it on her 4th quarter reporting Sept. 15.  If it was savings, she had to fill out documents at the bank.  You cannot deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash without reporting it.  If she did it in small amounts to avoid reporting, she will go to jail just like Hastert did.  That is called "structuring" and it is illegal.  Even a bank and its employees can get in big trouble for not reporting it.  $250,000 is a LOT of cash.  That would have required a BUNCH of reports if it ever went in and out of a bank.  It would have required one HEFTY quarterly tax payment if it was just income.

If she sold her own property to acquire that cash and so it was money reported years earlier, well....then she will have to account for who bought the items in order to prove it.  This is not a $25,000 car sale.  This is a quarter of a million dollars in cash riding around in the back of her car.  There was no search until the skilled dogs alerted them to probably cause.  Totally legal.

4th quarter ends in December. Reporting earnings a quarter ahead of time requires prescience, and while that isn't past the IRS to do, it isn't realistic. So far, they have only penalized people for not knowing they were going to have a better fourth quarter than they had anticipated, as far as I know.

As for accumulating money, I have a tin box (.30 caliber ammo can, actually), where i dump all the change in my pockets at the end of the day, and have done so for years. It is the second such box I have, and the full one just sits where it may be a coin hoard for the great grandkids some day if I don't need the change before then. But if I were to transport this, and the dogs hit on the residues from it being an ammo can and all, would it get stolen from me as ripped off parking meters or something? Maybe part of a lunch money rackett in grade school?  I'm sure someone could invent some crime the money is guilty of, regardless of how farfetched it may be, in order to take it.

I can see freezing assets until their provenance can be determined, and restoring them promptly to the owners in the event no crime can be proven. I cannot agree with taking those assets and requiring the owner to sue for their return (another loss on the owner) with no charges filed, no burden of proof, no due process. And I don't consider passing some law that says if you have more than the officer thought you should have (whatever that means) they can just take it to be due process.
When we reduce our 'law enforcement' folks to highwaymen, who will guard the rights of the citizens.

That question was answered at Bannack, MT, years ago. It ain't pretty.

[jpsb]

Isn't the War on Drugs grand? Thanks RR for that and the 86 amnesty. The war on drugs is really the war on civil liberties. Hard to believe a good conservative gave us that.

[Smokin Joe]

+1 8772275511  Tell them that. There is their number.

Get Real, why any kind of border controls? Why even a border. Why even any border checks.

That has been the libertarian platform before, if one is taking it from what they say.

Shove your hyperbolic sanctimony, tom. There are places in the US where 90 miles from the border covers half the state. I live 70 miles from an international border---does that mean I'd have to be subjected to this sort of shakedown every damned time someone got a notion? We have ICBMs closer than 90 miles from the border. Keep it in the first five miles.

[truth_seeker]

Yes, the driver was stopped over a traffic situation, the article tells us that.

The border patrol has those stop booths anywhere from 30 to 90 miles from the border and so on. They search cars. So, I guess that's a police state too. Some states even have booths for entering the state as well.



Didn't realize that this was such a symptom of a police state.

There is a border control check-point north of Oceanside, 50+ miles north of the border along Interstate 5. I think it doubles as a truck weigh station.

Apparently our civil-liberaltarians " would deprive law enforcement use, of said facilities, to protect us against a variety of crimes associated with borders; terrorism, drug dealing being two fairly serious ones, to most minds.

(Years ago California, as the nations largest agriculture state, had check points at which officers checked your belongings, in search of fruit which might include bugs bad for the states' interests)

I remember of a kid, being ordered to eat the stuff, lest it be taken at the oppressive border barricades, by the evil high-stepping oligarchs in uniforms.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I am not for giving up liberty either.  Neither do I think we are required to be blind and stupid.  It may or may not be related to drugs.  But $250,000 in cash is definitely going to end up about tax evasion.  The fact that it was in the back of her car means it is also probably about an illegal commerce of some sort.  This will not be hard to figure just by looking at her tax returns.   Every arrested criminal is innocent until proven guilty.  She will get her day in court.  If you can bet on the outcome, don't bet on her innocence.  There is no reasonable explanation other than criminal activity.

It's a car. Should it be on the front seat? On a rooftop carrier? Most people put things in the back of the car. Where else would you recommend? In the spare tire? Maybe that would have been a safer place to keep it. For all we know, the money has already been taxed. You assume guilt, and that does not put you down on the side of the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment.

[INVAR]

Yeah.  That was a terrible injustice.  But this lady with a quarter million in cash is guilty as sin.  She is still entitled to representation and due process and all of that.....but mark my words.  She is big time guilty. 

It is not up to her to prove her innocence according to the foundational and supreme law of the land.

But sadly that is where we have arrived in this country and what "justice" actually consists of.  I know.  We were the victims of police corruption that transcended itself right on up through corrupt prosecutors and judges.  Until it happens to you - one has no idea where we have actually arrived.

It is never a valid argument to say that because the Clintons (or whomever) are guilty that therefore no one else should be held to account.  The right argument is that they too she be held to account.

You and I both know that will never happen.  It will never happen precisely because all of our institutions are corrupt and our government wholly lawless.  Lawlessness breeds more lawlessness by the very vanguards that were supposed to uphold the law.  To the point that now "laws" are made to protect the lawless and impose penalty and punishment on those they rule.

That is the reality we now happily exist in, while lying to ourselves that we are a free and just society. 

No we're not.  We're a banana republic in everything but name, just on a much more massive scale.

[Smokin Joe]

There is a border control check-point north of Oceanside, 50+ miles north of the border along Interstate 5. I think it doubles as a truck weigh station.

Apparently our civil-liberaltarians " would deprive law enforcement use, of said facilities, to protect us against a variety of crimes associated with borders; terrorism, drug dealing being two fairly serious ones, to most minds.

(Years ago California, as the nations largest agriculture state, had check points at which officers checked your belongings, in search of fruit which might include bugs bad for the states' interests)

I remember of a kid, being ordered to eat the stuff, lest it be taken at the oppressive border barricades, by the evil high-stepping oligarchs in uniforms.

Truck regulatory weigh stations can be sited anywhere, but are usually close to state lines. In this part of the US, within five miles of the state line, and the border stations are (who would have guessed?) at the border, not south of Minot.