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

[ABX]

More civil asset forfeiture insanity. She was not arrested. She was not charged with a crime. She was let go at the scene. They just suspected because she had the money, she was laundering it (nice circular logic).

A K-9 unit intercepted $237,576 in cash during a traffic stop on U.S. 59 on Thursday, the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office reports.

A mother from Mission, Texas, and four children were in the SUV at the time of the stop. All five people were released at the scene, but an investigation is pending. The mother could be charged with money laundering, the sheriff's office said in a statement. .....



http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/article/Mother-with-4-kids-stopped-with-237-000-cash-in-12221416.php

[RoosGirl]

Note to self: kilobars of gold are easier to hide and I don't think they train the dogs to sniff for it.  Further research needed.

[INVAR]

Law "enforcement" are now just Highwaymen with badges.

Lawlessness now abounds - and the fish rots from the head, as all our institutions are corrupted beyond redemption.

Welcome to Third World Amerika.

[TomSea]

Mission's near McAllen which means it's near the border. Oh, the arrogance, don't do anything to those cartels, the Zetas or El Golfo. Wonders never cease.   

[240B]

She'll be damn lucky to ever see any of that money ever again. Even if she can prove she won the lottery or something like that, it will not matter. Once any government agency, any of them, takes possession of cash or assets, it takes an act of Congress to get it back, no matter what.


The way the government looks at it, once they get their hands on money, they own it. Possession is nine-tenths of the law except with the government. With the government possession is ten-tenths.


I wish her luck, of course. But she is looking at a bureaucratic nightmare along with months or even years before anything will happen toward her getting any of that money back.

[TomSea]

 

Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.

[INVAR]

Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.

Well, if your shit ever gets confiscated simply because the cops like your ride, your house or your boat, we will also applaud loudly and  proclaimed you engaged in some kind of criminal act and declare that got you what you deserve.

Who needs courts and convictions when police can just act as Highwaymen to the applause of people like you?

[Suppressed]

Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.

Even if it is, there's not due process in any moral or ethical sense, even of a legal sense fiction may be constructed.  When you're an innocent victim someday, please look back at your cheering of "guilty 'til proven innocent".

[TomSea]

This didn't happen in Emporia, Kansas, I trust law enforcement on this.  This is cartel money, that kills, brings misery and belongs to the worst of types.  It could be drug money, it could be human trafficking money... the chances this is innocent money so folks can act like their righteous constitutionalists I'd wager is close to zero. I'm sure if it is innocent, she will get her money back, the article says she can already be charged with money laundering. Hats off to the men in blue. 

[TomSea]

Even if it is, there's not due process in any moral or ethical sense, even of a legal sense fiction may be constructed.  When you're an innocent victim someday, please look back at your cheering of "guilty 'til proven innocent".

I'll cheer this bust on those who sell poison for a living to Americans.  What if that is what this is about? I assume that.

[ABX]

What part of 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' and 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' are so hard to understand?

Hard to believe I actually see some justifying this on a Conservative forum... but then again between extreme authoritarianism and trolls, the Constitution has been all but discarded.

[ABX]

Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.

That's now how this works, that's not how any of this works.

You can't have property seized just because the crown thinks it is too much for you to have in cash, because you choose not to use the crown's banks. If it is drug money, a case needs to be made before a judge with evidence and a warrant granted for this specific case and specific seizure.

Civil asset forfeiture starts with the presumption of guilt for a perfectly lawful act, just based on someone's opinion it 'could' have been used in the commission of a crime.

For all you know, she may just not trust banks or sold her grandmother's house for cash (another recent case with six figures seized on the highway).

[TomSea]

What part of 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' and 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' are so hard to understand?

Hard to believe I actually see some justifying this on a Conservative forum... but then again between extreme authoritarianism and trolls, the Constitution has been all but discarded.

I'd be careful with your language,  one could just as easily say those arguing against this are taking sides with the cartels. If it's not legal, then, they wouldn't have done it. I'm sure the law gives them the right.

If you are making personal shots, then, I think Chris Christie was perfectly correct in assessing that Rand Paul in some of his votes per privacy rights, actually might help terrorists.  It was in the debate.

But if siding with heroin dealers is one's idea of the constitution, blah blah blah.

[RoosGirl]

Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.

No one is saying this isn't a suspicious amount of money to be carrying around in your vehicle, but the way things are confiscated prior to guilt being proven is wrong.

[truth_seeker]

What part of 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' and 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' are so hard to understand?

Hard to believe I actually see some justifying this on a Conservative forum... but then again between extreme authoritarianism and trolls, the Constitution has been all but discarded.

Did you miss the term "unreasonable?"

It seems reasonable to seize property, which has a very high likelihood of being illegally obtained.

Apparently the courts agree with me.

[TomSea]

"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.

[RoosGirl]

"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.

Or the dog could be trained to sniff currency.

[HoustonSam]

Did you miss the term "unreasonable?"

It seems reasonable to seize property, which has a very high likelihood of being illegally obtained.

Apparently the courts agree with me.

What evidence establishes a high likelihood that this money was illegally obtained?

Unfortunately the courts have agreed with specious arguments all too often.

[ABX]

I'd be careful with your language,  one could just as easily say those arguing against this are taking sides with the cartels. If it's not legal, then, they wouldn't have done it. I'm sure the law gives them the right.

If you are making personal shots, then, I think Chris Christie was perfectly correct in assessing that Rand Paul in some of his votes per privacy rights, actually might help terrorists.  It was in the debate.

But if siding with heroin dealers is one's idea of the constitution, blah blah blah.

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.

[TomSea]

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

[RAT Patrol]

She'll be damn lucky to ever see any of that money ever again. Even if she can prove she won the lottery or something like that, it will not matter. Once any government agency, any of them, takes possession of cash or assets, it takes an act of Congress to get it back, no matter what.


The way the government looks at it, once they get their hands on money, they own it. Possession is nine-tenths of the law except with the government. With the government possession is ten-tenths.


I wish her luck, of course. But she is looking at a bureaucratic nightmare along with months or even years before anything will happen toward her getting any of that money back.

It is likely illegal to have that amount of cash hidden like that, regardless of usage.  At minimum it is tax evasion.  It is too bad we require those sorts of laws but corrupt human nature refuses to govern itself.  Minus a community with strong moral and religious foundations that train people to govern themselves, you get more and more laws to control the corruption. 

Remember Denny Hastert was just arrested for structuring his cash banking transactions in a way to remain under the reporting limits.   There are many laws that are used to keep a check on large amounts of cash for a variety of reasons.  This lady was up to no good even if not drugs.  If she just ran a cash business, the only reason she would have that much cash would be to avoid reporting, maybe just to avoid taxes.   Sympathy for her is misplaced.  Accusations of failed due process are wrong.  She will get her day in court as well as a lot of visits from the IRS.  You cannot hide cash like that.

[INVAR]

What part of 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' and 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' are so hard to understand?

Hard to believe I actually see some justifying this on a Conservative forum... but then again between extreme authoritarianism and trolls, the Constitution has been all but discarded.

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

They don't care.

The appearance of evil automatically makes you guilty of whatever, unless you are an elected official in the Oligarchy. 

Punishing enemies of the state, whether they be actual or perceived is all that matters to a people who traded liberty for the empty promise of safety and security.

[Smokin Joe]

I'd be careful with your language,  one could just as easily say those arguing against this are taking sides with the cartels. If it's not legal, then, they wouldn't have done it. I'm sure the law gives them the right.

If you are making personal shots, then, I think Chris Christie was perfectly correct in assessing that Rand Paul in some of his votes per privacy rights, actually might help terrorists.  It was in the debate.

But if siding with heroin dealers is one's idea of the constitution, blah blah blah.

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.