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

[corbe]

  I see a slightly used MRAP in Fort Bend County's future.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Yeah. It's that 80% thing. I guess we should be grateful if we get all the 'wins' except the part where they will randomly stand you against a wall...

[TomSea]

One can go full libertarian, full Ron Paul on all of these issues:

Per the 2011-12 campaign:


And I've been supportive of Ron and Rand Paul again, defending them, If I utter rhetoric sometimes, it is in response to what others say that is a bit over the top. Before terrorism was an issue, the libertarian party was very extremely open borders as was Gary Johnson.

But I see this issue as one with law enforcement and in the border area, if we are talking about Chicago and the problems there, I'm sure more can be done their to lower crime. It is a law and order issue. Maybe libertarian would work per Ron Paul's views; but it's not going to come into law.

[thackney]

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.

Wealth isn't reported, only income to the IRS.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh Comrade?

[TomSea]

In the earlier story from Breitbart, the money was put into paint cans; this was obviously done to conceal.

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

There are a lot of variables here.

We don't quite know if it was just that they found a mother of 4 kids with $237,000 or if there are extenuating circumstances. I assume the latter.

[Oceander]

"The task force is comprised of local agencies and is a Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Initiative."

Task force specifically for drug interdiction and guess what? A K-9 unit sniffed this out, could that money have some dope smell or something and a dog found it? But liberaltarians will turn the constitution on its head and you know they are right.

Dope traces can be found on all sorts of money, including money that belongs to someone who has never personally touched the stuff or known anyone who has. 

That's a very, very weak reed on which to justify depriving someone of their property.  You might be surprised to find out what some of the bills in your pockets contain.

[Smokin Joe]

One can go full libertarian, full Ron Paul on all of these issues:

Per the 2011-12 campaign:


And I've been supportive of Ron and Rand Paul again, defending them, If I utter rhetoric sometimes, it is in response to what others say that is a bit over the top. Before terrorism was an issue, the libertarian party was very extremely open borders as was Gary Johnson.

But I see this issue as one with law enforcement and in the border area, if we are talking about Chicago and the problems there, I'm sure more can be done their to lower crime. It is a law and order issue. Maybe libertarian would work per Ron Paul's views; but it's not going to come into law.

Again, with the Hyperbole.

We have laws against drugs. You have no clue what that sh*t has cost me and my family, and I would love to see the death penalty for dealing. Sell it, bang, done.

But the drug war is no excuse for those entrusted to uphold our laws stealing people's stuff without regard for the Constitution.

It isn't a "Don't steal their shit AND legalize drugs" proposition, the two are different issues.

How about don't steal people's shit and stop the GD drugs? Both can be done.

I am not, for what it's worth, a Libertarian.

I am a Constitutional Conservative.

While the two may track close on some issues, apparently not on all.

[DB]

In the earlier story from Breitbart, the money was put into paint cans; this was obviously done to conceal.

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

There are a lot of variables here.

We don't quite know if it was just that they found a mother of 4 kids with $237,000 or if there are extenuating circumstances. I assume the latter.

I don't know what the story is, but if you were travelling with $237k you'd want to conceal it to. You would be an idiot not to.

[Oceander]

In the earlier story from Breitbart, the money was put into paint cans; this was obviously done to conceal.

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

There are a lot of variables here.

We don't quite know if it was just that they found a mother of 4 kids with $237,000 or if there are extenuating circumstances. I assume the latter.

Maybe she should have put it in a mattress instead?  Isn't that where all good anti-government types are supposed to stash their cash?

[Oceander]

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.

Why?  We're all supposed to report our wealth to the IRS?

[Smokin Joe]

In the earlier story from Breitbart, the money was put into paint cans; this was obviously done to conceal.

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

There are a lot of variables here.

We don't quite know if it was just that they found a mother of 4 kids with $237,000 or if there are extenuating circumstances. I assume the latter.

I wouldn't leave it on the seat, or toss it on the dashboard. Sure it was concealed--in something that would also make it easier to carry. Like a suitcase, or a paper bag, or ammo cans, or a burlap sack, or whatever.

We don't know what the story is, we just know the police are taking her money.
She will have to sue to get her money back.
The lawyers will feed heavily at that trough if she wins, and maybe even if she doesn't.

Asset forfeiture also provides incentive for police to 'make sure' the person is 'guilty' of something, to justify the take.
Such opportunities can only lead to institutionalized corruption.

[RAT Patrol]

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.

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.

She is innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense.  But when you are arrested for a crime, they handcuff you and take you to jail and you hire a defense attorney.  So in a practical sense you also must prove your innocence.  The point of innocent until proven guilty is that you retain certain rights until you are proven guilty and that any lacking evidence is in your favor.   You cannot be arrested w/o cause and things like that.  It does not mean that we must play stupid when you are caught with $250,000 in the back of your car.   Name me one, just ONE, legitimate reason she might have had for that.  There really isn't one.  Still, if I were on the jury I would need a lot more than that.  I doubt this is a difficult case to make. 

INVAR, you are a brilliant poster, as is Smoking Joe.  I come here to read posters like the two of you.  It is so rare that I disagree with you about anything.  Thanks for all the great stuff you post here.  On this issue I don't really have sympathy for the lady or feel that law enforcement overstepped in any way. Yet.  No one drives around with that kind of money in the back of their car.  The closest personal experience I can think of is that my grandpa used to keep cash in his house.  Why?  The rumor is that he evaded taxes whenever he could.  I really have no first hand knowledge and he died over 30 years ago, completely broke.  He had nowhere near that kind of money stashed.  He ran his own business and I suspect some customers paid with cash.  For the most part, even way back then, everyone wanted the paper trail of checks.  But he would never have had it a quarter mil in the back of his car.  Not ever.  A bank branch does not have that much money in their entire bank at any given time.

[thackney]

She is innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense.  But when you are arrested for a crime, they handcuff you and take you to jail and you hire a defense attorney.  So in a practical sense you also must prove your innocence.  The point of innocent until proven guilty is that you retain certain rights until you are proven guilty and that any lacking evidence is in your favor.   You cannot be arrested w/o cause and things like that.  It does not mean that we must play stupid when you are caught with $250,000 in the back of your car.   Name me one, just ONE, legitimate reason she might have had for that.  There really isn't one.  Still, if I were on the jury I would need a lot more than that.  I doubt this is a difficult case to make. 

INVAR, you are a brilliant poster, as is Smoking Joe.  I come here to read posters like the two of you.  It is so rare that I disagree with you about anything.  Thanks for all the great stuff you post here.  On this issue I don't really have sympathy for the lady or feel that law enforcement overstepped in any way. Yet.  No one drives around with that kind of money in the back of their car.  The closest personal experience I can think of is that my grandpa used to keep cash in his house.  Why?  The rumor is that he evaded taxes whenever he could.  I really have no first hand knowledge and he died over 30 years ago, completely broke.  He had nowhere near that kind of money stashed.  He ran his own business and I suspect some customers paid with cash.  For the most part, even way back then, everyone wanted the paper trail of checks.  But he would never have had it a quarter mil in the back of his car.  Not ever.  A bank branch does not have that much money in their entire bank at any given time.

It may not be your experience, but there are a lot of people who have no trust of banks.  Their lifetime accumulation of wealth is cash.  And if they move, they move their cash.

We can debate the foolishness of such actions, but it is not illegal, nor should it be.

[Ancient]

Or the dog could be trained to sniff currency.

Any large amount of cash already has drug residue unless it is straight from the press.  No need for special training.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

A couple weeks ago I was walking around with $1300 in an envelope in my pocket.  Drug dealer, right?  Or an evacuee who didn't want to rely solely on credit cards?

No, it wasn't a quarter million.  But it was enough to be worth taking, enough to "look suspicious" (and little enough that they might think I wouldn't fight over getting it back). I think it would have been wrong for police to seize MY money without due process, so I guess this lady should be treated the same.

I did end up getting "searched" on the way home.  Coming back into the state, I had to stop (all trucks/pickups/vans/trailers) at an ag station.  Never seen one of these that required "cars" to stop.  Cop sees the cover on the bed, asks me what's inside (tent, camp gear, water, etc), thinks for a second and waives me on.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Or the dog could be trained to sniff currency.

Or the dog could be trained to alert on a hand signal.

[INVAR]

She is innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense.  But when you are arrested for a crime, they handcuff you and take you to jail and you hire a defense attorney.  So in a practical sense you also must prove your innocence. 

As the defense attorneys for my daughters stated, 'innocent until proven guilty is a myth - even if it is on parchment'. 'The REALITY is that they are guilty in the eyes of the jury, the judge and the system the moment they walk into the courtroom, and our job is prove their innocence, which against Police charges are very difficult to do'.

We are already comfortable with tyranny and justify it or (as I was) completely oblivious to the reality of things.

You cannot be arrested w/o cause and things like that. 

No, but CAF permits the agents of the state to confiscate your property without being charged or arrested - and when that happens you rarely if ever, get it back - because it will likely cost you more than what the property is that they took.

That too is reality.

It does not mean that we must play stupid when you are caught with $250,000 in the back of your car.   Name me one, just ONE, legitimate reason she might have had for that. 

She just sold a yacht for cash?

It's a sad state when everyone is automatically geared to believe that if you are caught with any cash on you - you must be guilty of a crime.  But hey - try having more than $500 in cash on you at an airport and watch what happens.

INVAR, you are a brilliant poster, as is Smoking Joe.  I come here to read posters like the two of you.  It is so rare that I disagree with you about anything.

I have no problem with disagreement.  My bewilderment is how shallow the understanding of liberty actually is for some people posting on a "Conservative" message board.

The concept of "limited government" is now become something even "Conservatives" regard as 'fringe', and empowering the state to 'make us safe' while 'punishing our enemies' is something saluted.

[Ancient]

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.

Legal as in approved by the courts... yes.  Right as in I agree this is correct?  Absolutely not.  There should be NO asset forfeiture without a conviction.  If they need to impound the asset, ok... as long as the trial is done in a timely manner.  If the charges are dismissed or the accused is found not guilty then the assets should be returned without any further legal action.

My response to this taking a tool from the police?.... do your job and you get your bonus.

As far as the requirements to track and justify cash in banks and transfers... I'm opposed to all of that.  The war on drugs has infringed on personal freedom and privacy and to a large degree it has been done by Republicans.  These laws are justified as tools to fight organized crime, yet decades after they have been in place... little to no progress.  Instead they are used against common citizens.  Last year, the government confiscated a greater value of assets than the total amount stolen by all criminals.  HUGE red flag that this has gone too far and needs to be reigned in.

[Restored]

Wealth isn't reported, only income to the IRS.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh Comrade?

So she can prove the income?
Presumed innocent until guilty in a COURT OF LAW. All she has to do is show up in court and prove where she got the money.
Let me give you an example. A kid puts a gun in your face and takes $800 from you. Did he rob you or did he just have the money?

[Ancient]

Here is an article by someone trying to defend CAF and making the argument that it was actually closer to "only" a half to a third of as much stolen by criminals. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

Still WAY too much and a sign that it is out of control and being abused.

[DB]

She is innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense.  But when you are arrested for a crime, they handcuff you and take you to jail and you hire a defense attorney.  So in a practical sense you also must prove your innocence.  The point of innocent until proven guilty is that you retain certain rights until you are proven guilty and that any lacking evidence is in your favor.   You cannot be arrested w/o cause and things like that.  It does not mean that we must play stupid when you are caught with $250,000 in the back of your car.   Name me one, just ONE, legitimate reason she might have had for that.  There really isn't one.  Still, if I were on the jury I would need a lot more than that.  I doubt this is a difficult case to make. 

INVAR, you are a brilliant poster, as is Smoking Joe.  I come here to read posters like the two of you.  It is so rare that I disagree with you about anything.  Thanks for all the great stuff you post here.  On this issue I don't really have sympathy for the lady or feel that law enforcement overstepped in any way. Yet.  No one drives around with that kind of money in the back of their car.  The closest personal experience I can think of is that my grandpa used to keep cash in his house.  Why?  The rumor is that he evaded taxes whenever he could.  I really have no first hand knowledge and he died over 30 years ago, completely broke.  He had nowhere near that kind of money stashed.  He ran his own business and I suspect some customers paid with cash.  For the most part, even way back then, everyone wanted the paper trail of checks.  But he would never have had it a quarter mil in the back of his car.  Not ever.  A bank branch does not have that much money in their entire bank at any given time.

What actual law was broken by having $250k in the car?

I've carried $25k in cash in my car.

[Restored]

Here's another great example:

An illegal alien walks up to you and shoots you in the head in front of many witnesses.
Now according to you guys, he should be able to walk freely until his court date because he is "innocent until proven guilty".

[DB]

So she can prove the income?
Presumed innocent until guilty in a COURT OF LAW. All she has to do is show up in court and prove where she got the money.
Let me give you an example. A kid puts a gun in your face and takes $800 from you. Did he rob you or did he just have the money?

So she's guilty until she proves her innocence?

And what is the actual law that makes it illegal to have $250k in the car?

[DB]

Here's another great example:

An illegal alien walks up to you and shoots you in the head in front of many witnesses.
Now according to you guys, he should be able to walk freely until his court date because he is "innocent until proven guilty".

Your example is a clear cut crime where the law was broken when committed.

Again, what law did she actually break by having $250k in the car?

[Restored]

Oh no. He may have shot you but you say he is innocent.

Again, what law did she actually break by having $250k in the car?

The law that says she needs to prove she paid taxes on that money like all of us have to do.