The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: ABX on September 23, 2017, 05:31:42 pm
-
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://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/66/07/01/14184526/3/920x920.jpg)
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/article/Mother-with-4-kids-stopped-with-237-000-cash-in-12221416.php
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :thud:
-
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.
-
:police:
Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police.
-
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?
-
:police:
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".
-
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. :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".
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.
-
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.
-
:police:
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).
-
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.
-
:police:
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
:boring: We were really intellectually stumped there.
:mauslaff:
We must not be worth the time.
Or a cowardly argument.
@the_doc
Well, I'll just call your argument, stupid.
Got that love.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/31935758.jpg)
Didn't realize that this was such a symptom of a police state.
-
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.
-
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.
:boring: We were really intellectually stumped there.
:mauslaff:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/31935758.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
+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.
-
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.
(http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/31935758.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I see a slightly used MRAP in Fort Bend County's future.
(http://wbbh.images.worldnow.com/images/3900330_G.jpg)
-
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...
-
One can go full libertarian, full Ron Paul on all of these issues:
Per the 2011-12 campaign:
(http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=robtornoeAC6D169A-A3C2-4ED6-17FF-CFC2287E4B06.jpg&width=660)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
One can go full libertarian, full Ron Paul on all of these issues:
Per the 2011-12 campaign:
(http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=robtornoeAC6D169A-A3C2-4ED6-17FF-CFC2287E4B06.jpg&width=660)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Or the dog could be trained to sniff currency.
Or the dog could be trained to alert on a hand signal.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, and I'm sure most of these people with no trust in banks, live in some of the poorest areas of the nation, the lower Rio Grande valley and happen to be driving to or from, with nearly a quarter of a million dollars and that is without any kind of racial profiling. Right next to the border, the war zone of Northern Mexico, with some of the most vicious drug gangs on earth, who engage in beheadings, torture, kidnapping, human trafficking and so on.
I'll say the story does not give enough information, she was stopped for a traffic violation and then, they found something else.
Very persuasive argument.
-
We can assume this fits the definition of "asset seizure"; but that may not even be clear if the law is nuanced. You do have plenty of cases of the abuse of asset seizure, the police take $1000 and things like that; but I'm not about to go that way on a case that very much looks like it could have connections to the notorious drug cartels of Mexico and that is what this looks like.
-
Yes, and I'm sure most of these people with no trust in banks, live in some of the poorest areas of the nation, the lower Rio Grande valley and happen to be driving to or from, with nearly a quarter of a million dollars and that is without any kind of racial profiling. Right next to the border, the war zone of Northern Mexico, with some of the most vicious drug gangs on earth, who engage in beheadings, torture, kidnapping, human trafficking and so on.
I'll say the story does not give enough information, she was stopped for a traffic violation and then, they found something else.
Very persuasive argument.
Some of them are from countries where bank accounts were taken or trimmed by the government.
We seem to be approaching that and some of you are cheering for it.
Sad...
-
TomSea wrote:
"Dollar to a doughnut, this is drug money, well done by the police."
I have to agree.
Looks like "a good bust".
The "mother" has a lot more to worry about instead of "getting the money back".
As in some cartel folks "gettin' even with her" -- for losing THEIR money.
Before too long, she may need to be put into the witness protection program!
-
People should look at that "borderland beat" news website, it's often graphic, what is happening down there is bad, I hope it only affects a small part of the population; but it is a war zone in parts and at times... and a very vicious one.
They have people in the northern part of Mexico called "lookouts" basically, looking out for one cartel to do their business, run drugs or whatever but if they opposition catches you, watch out. This certainly sounds like transporting some sort of ill-got monies to me.
-
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".
:facepalm2:
-
Oh no. He may have shot you but you say he is innocent.
The law that says she needs to prove she paid taxes on that money like all of us have to do.
No such law.
-
Oh no. He may have shot you but you say he is innocent.
The law that says she needs to prove she paid taxes on that money like all of us have to do.
So where is the threshold for this law you claim? Carrying $1,000 in your car? $10,000? Why not $10? Is it adjusted for inflation? How about based on your income?
No one is saying this woman shouldn't be investigated and due process of law applied.
You are skipping that little thing called the U.S. constitution with its innocence until proven guilty, due process and requiring a warrant to go look for things.
-
People should look at that "borderland beat" news website, it's often graphic, what is happening down there is bad, I hope it only affects a small part of the population; but it is a war zone in parts and at times... and a very vicious one.
They have people in the northern part of Mexico called "lookouts" basically, looking out for one cartel to do their business, run drugs or whatever but if they opposition catches you, watch out. This certainly sounds like transporting some sort of ill-got monies to me.
So in Texas, anyone found with a gun in their car should have it confiscated because it could have been used in a crime and they're often used by the drug runners... After all guns are primarily to kill people... They should have to hire a lawyer to PROVE the gun wasn't involved in a crime before they get it back... Otherwise the police get to keep the gun and/or sell it for their own purposes...
Wow.
-
Oh no. He may have shot you but you say he is innocent.
The law that says she needs to prove she paid taxes on that money like all of us have to do.
Which law is that? And what does it state is the amount of money in possession which warns seizure without even an accusation of a crime?
And since when, unless under an IRS audit, do all of us need to prove we paid taxes on the income that created our wealth?
If I have a bunch of money in the bank, that's not enough justification for the police to seize it without any due process. Now let's say I take it out and drive it across town to put it in another bank. While doing so, I get pulled over. Can the police take my money now, while they couldn't 10 minutes ago? Does it make a difference if it's cash vs a cashier's check? What if I don't get pulled over and managed to deposit the money in the other bank, is it now protected or still fair game?
-
So in Texas, anyone found with a gun in their car should have it confiscated because it could have been used in a crime and they're often used by the drug runners... After all guns are primarily to kill people... They should have to hire a lawyer to PROVE the gun wasn't involved in a crime before they get it back... Otherwise the police get to keep the gun and/or sell it for their own purposes...
Wow.
Nobody said that. My stance from the beginning is I'm sure the police know what they are doing and they are probably correct in this case. We have very limited facts and details to be jumping to the conclusion that this is a wrongful asset seizure.
-
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".
No, a lousy example.
That is a crime being committed in plain sight.
A better example is that the cops confiscate your car because they declare it will likely be used while you are driving drunk.
The law that says she needs to prove she paid taxes on that money like all of us have to do.
I see.
Well, by that reckoning I suppose we should all applaud and cheer when the police confiscate your home and lock you out of it until you prove you paid your property taxes.
Oh, and all the stuff in your house - you will have to prove you purchased legitimately - or it can be kept or sold at auction.
Because of course if you cannot prove your innocence - then obviously you had either stolen those items or received stolen property - in which case the cops are justified in everything they just did.
-
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.
I am going to turn this right back at you. I also generally respect your opinions--in this case we disagree.
There have been times when it was not unusual for me to have over 5K in my pocket or on my person. At an auction, a gun show, a flea market, or other events money talks, BS walks. Not all in the same place on me, but on me nonetheless. Now, I'm not an upscale dresser. I only own one suit because I thought it might come in handy, and a couple months ago, I didn't even have that. To someone who does not know anything about me, they might assume (especially someone from an urban environment where clothing and newness of vehicle are seen as class designators) that I was some lowlife, and with that amount of cash on my person it had to be from nefarious sources.
Not so. It has all been taxed, or was in the process of being taxed, but during an oil boom, even businesses I had done business with would no longer accept personal checks. I don't like using plastic, because the less you do, the less likely you are to get your data snagged by some thief. That leaves cash. When I bought vehicles, I paid cash--quite literally. I have only ever been in one place that would not take it, and I just left and took my money elsewhere where I was welcome. There have been occasions when I, wearing leathers, vest, biker boots an a do-rag rode my Harley Davidson to the night deposit with over 10K in the saddlebags.
Nothing nefarious involved, it was money from the day for a charity bingo.
The assumption that because someone has something is the thin end of the rich people are holding the poor people down wedge--the assumption that because they have it, they acquired it illegally, are using it illegally, stole it or didn't pay taxes on it, and all rich people are criminals sounds like someone reading posters at an OWS march.
That is the assumption being used to take stuff from anyone who has stuff. I don't shell out fro new cars--I consider that a waste of money. One third of the value of that vehicle evaporates when you drive it off the lot. That isn't a good investment. Instead, I look for reasonably well kept vehicles which will do the job I want done, have no mechanical issues, and a decent service record, and weigh the anticipated remaining mileage in that vehicle's life against the price.
My vehicles are all old enough to vote, and I recently drove one from the Montana line to the Chesapeake Bay and back with no issues, as I fully expected it to perform. I don't own it for status, but function. My clothing I have addressed, it protects me, it keeps my parts concealed from public view, it is durable, and that's what I want. People spend huge amounts of money impressing one another with their clothing and cars, but that leaves me with a lot of money left over to do other things with. Now, that money I saved is gone after an extended period of goofing off combined with dealing with family matters, so it's time to start piling it up again, but what is the point if I don't have
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.
People will often live lean lives to have nice things. A guy who lives modestly might have rare books, or a valuable stamp or coin collection, a tin box full of little gold bars or silver, or a gun collection and a "stockpile" of ammo, or fine art on the walls, while he walks to work in worn out boots and faded jeans or drives a beat up old car there.
It's what makes him happy, what he feels is important that he will spend his life collecting, even if that is cash.
This was done sans warrant.
On the reaction of a dog.
I like dogs, I know they can smell things I can't.
They can hear things I can't. My dog is my first line of defense against intruders, my alarm system, and I have known him long enough to tell whether or not he knows who is coming by his reaction, and even who that is.
I don't have anything against the dog, but the idea of the government setting the dogs against my property and person and using that fishing expedition to take my stuff bothers me, and it should bother you, too.
This is characterized as a "routine" search, but no search conducted on an American on American soil should be "routine".
We have become so inured to having our Rights violated, that conservatives now support this? We are metal detected, swabbed and sniffed at the airport (remove your shoes) put your stuff on the conveyor belt to be x-rayed. We are metal detected on entering public buildings and schools (get the kids used to that?). RFID scanned leaving the store, videotaped more than Johnny Carson, tracked by ez pass, phone GPS or triangulation, and have even those communications recorded by the NSA and others. Every non-cash purchase is recorded.
My grandfather would have shit. My great great grandfather would have rebelled. Instead, are we to meekly say "Go ahead take my stuff so I can be safe".
Yeah, If you don't have anything, no one can take it from you, and who better to deprive you of it than they guys with the authority, the network, and the weapons: The Government. But wait, the purpose of government was supposed to be to secure our Rghts, not trash them.
I am adamantly against the illicit drug trade in the US. I have seen a whole generation of my extended family, with a few exceptions, decimated by that shit. I have one grandson I have been happy to hear was in prison, because he has a chance to get clean and isn't on the street where he has died three times now. He'd be dead today, but the last time someone tossed his OD'd ass out of a pickup, the convenience store clerk locked his till, called 911 on the way to give him CPR and the policeman who pulled up had Narcan on board and administered the shot that saved his life.
You have no idea and no words can adequately express the animosity I have toward pushers. No point in profanity, even though four decades of construction work and oilfield have left me a virtuoso of the invective, it would be woefully inadequate.
I'd gladly support the death penalty for convicted drug dealers, out to the yard with them and bust some caps-- I'd gladly volunteer to man the rifle to help eliminate that scourge--as long as the conviction was just and not the product of someone seeding a 'crime scene' to justify stealing their stuff.
But I cannot, in good conscience, advocate nor support the wholesale deprivation of people of their assets without specific reason, other than they have them. Follow the rules, if they are found guilty, loss of assets. Don't kick that money back to the agency who seizes them in order to eliminate some of the profit motive.
Which raises the next question.
How do we know it was ONLY $237K? Seems like an odd total. I thought the 'big boyz' liked round numbers. Did $13K go missing? More? $1K in fresh c-notes is about an eighth of an inch thick, doubled over. That hides fairly well.
-
The racism here is palpable. Fascinating how so many supposedly good Americans are so willing to sell out the rights the Founders fought and died for because of their racism.
-
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".
The judge has plenty of reason to refuse bail to someone he considers a flight risk, and who is charged with a crime.
Bad example. Try again.
-
We have become so inured to having our Rights violated, that conservatives now support this? We are metal detected, swabbed and sniffed at the airport (remove your shoes) put your stuff on the conveyor belt to be x-rayed. We are metal detected on entering public buildings and schools (get the kids used to that?). RFID scanned leaving the store, videotaped more than Johnny Carson, tracked by ez pass, phone GPS or triangulation, and have even those communications recorded by the NSA and others. Every non-cash purchase is recorded.
Yeah, If you don't have anything, no one can take it from you, and who better to deprive you of it than they guys with the authority, the network, and the weapons: The Government. But wait, the purpose of government was supposed to be to secure our Rghts, not trash them.
This entire conversation is an indictment and revelation of the fact that even among those who self-identify as Conservative or Constitutionalist - liberty is no longer valued. Tyranny is valued because the idea of using government to confiscate property that they deem may be used in a crime, and to punish those we hate, and to make us safe and secure is all that matters to most of the population that now lives in this land.
We are conditioned already to accept and endure the scourge of Isms, for our own good and benefit. It's amazing to read all the Apologetics and justifications for it.
And it illustrates that liberty on these shores, is lost - and as Adams warned in 1775 - is never regained.
-
A friend of mine got married several years back and after the reception he handed me a large envelope and asked me to hide it under the bed of their hotel room. I'm pretty sure it had a bunch of cash in it from the reception. I don't know/care how much, I didn't look, of course. I will say I'm confident it wasn't drugs or a murder weapon, as he would have neither and wouldn't put me in that position if he did.
If I had been stopped carrying a large(?) amount of cash, should the cops take(/keep) it? I can't prove I paid taxes on it (both because it's not my money, and there's no way to prove that taxes have been paid on the particular money you happen to be carrying). And I'm not sure it's even taxable income in the first place (and hey, maybe the lady in question with the quarter million simply received it over many years as gifts under the taxable limit? NOT, but possible).
-
Let's explore some things here.
(I went to the original article, but its sketchy -- not much info)
The lady was stopped by police for a "traffic violation".
OK so far.
The police can stop you for such things.
Article says:
"The money was discovered during a roadside investigation."
It doesn't state -in print- that a drug/cash sniffing dog was used as a part of that "investigation", but I think it's safe to assume that from the included picture.
I'll admit that I don't know what kind of "threshold" a drug-sniffing dog is trained to detect, but it must be enough so that they don't detect every piece of contaminated cash that one carries in one's pocket (as others in this thread have pointed out, nearly ANY non-new bill of paper money could have a -slight- contamination of drugs).
So I'm going to guess that the dog, during the course of routinely being escorted around the vehicle, "perked up" enough to alert its handlers that this vehicle contained -something- that "passed the threshold of detection" and thus met a certain standard.
At this point, with that standard passed, the concept of "reasonable suspicion" comes into play.
The article doesn't say whether the police then asked the driver to give consent to search the vehicle or not. We don't know that.
But again, the response of the dog warranted that the legal threshold of "reasonable suspicion" was present enough to investigate further.
So, reasonable suspicion gives way to probable cause, and the police searched the vehicle.
Aside:
Wasn't there a Supreme Court case not that long ago that decided that in some instances, the police can search a motor vehicle without taking the time to get a court-ordered warrant? On the grounds that, since it -is- a vehicle, that the vehicle might disappear while the warrant was being obtained?
As soon as the cops saw what WE see in the pic above, the alarm bells would be goin' off.
LOUDLY.
Money stacked and wrapped like that is unlikely (that's an understatement) to be in the process of innocently transported by a reasonably prudent person. And certainly not in that quantity.
Sumthin' ain't right here.
Even Ray Charles could see this one.
As I posted above, this lady's probably in more immediate danger from revenge by the cartel for whom she was transportin' the cash, rather than the police!
-
A friend of mine got married several years back and after the reception he handed me a large envelope and asked me to hide it under the bed of their hotel room. I'm pretty sure it had a bunch of cash in it from the reception. I don't know/care how much, I didn't look, of course. I will say I'm confident it wasn't drugs or a murder weapon, as he would have neither and wouldn't put me in that position if he did.
If I had been stopped carrying a large(?) amount of cash, should the cops take(/keep) it?
I would venture to say that given the replies by more than a few in this conversation, YES. You do not have to be charged with a crime to have anything of value confiscated if deemed it may have been, or may yet be used in a crime, even if there is no evidence of such crime.
I can't prove I paid taxes on it (both because it's not my money, and there's no way to prove that taxes have been paid on the particular money you happen to be carrying).
Then you should go to jail until you proved you paid taxes on it, like the rest of us have to according to some.
And I'm not sure it's even taxable income in the first place
Irrelevant.
Here...Jonathan Winters will explain it for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aNdEaOAHfg
-
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'm having trouble with your statement that "If she is dealing in that amount of money then she had to report it on her 4th quarter reporting Sept. 15." NO she didn't. There can be several reasons why she didn't have to report it ($$$ from sale of main home [rules apply], inheritance, money from law suit $$$, lottery winnings assuming authorities would have withheld taxable amount for IRS ... to name a few). Otherwise, see penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc300/tc306 (https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc300/tc306)
-
Let's explore some things here.
(I went to the original article, but its sketchy -- not much info)
The lady was stopped by police for a "traffic violation".
OK so far.
The police can stop you for such things.
Article says:
"The money was discovered during a roadside investigation."
It doesn't state -in print- that a drug/cash sniffing dog was used as a part of that "investigation", but I think it's safe to assume that from the included picture.
I'll admit that I don't know what kind of "threshold" a drug-sniffing dog is trained to detect, but it must be enough so that they don't detect every piece of contaminated cash that one carries in one's pocket (as others in this thread have pointed out, nearly ANY non-new bill of paper money could have a -slight- contamination of drugs).
So I'm going to guess that the dog, during the course of routinely being escorted around the vehicle, "perked up" enough to alert its handlers that this vehicle contained -something- that "passed the threshold of detection" and thus met a certain standard.
At this point, with that standard passed, the concept of "reasonable suspicion" comes into play.
The article doesn't say whether the police then asked the driver to give consent to search the vehicle or not. We don't know that.
But again, the response of the dog warranted that the legal threshold of "reasonable suspicion" was present enough to investigate further.
So, reasonable suspicion gives way to probable cause, and the police searched the vehicle.
Aside:
Wasn't there a Supreme Court case not that long ago that decided that in some instances, the police can search a motor vehicle without taking the time to get a court-ordered warrant? On the grounds that, since it -is- a vehicle, that the vehicle might disappear while the warrant was being obtained?
As soon as the cops saw what WE see in the pic above, the alarm bells would be goin' off.
LOUDLY.
Money stacked and wrapped like that is unlikely (that's an understatement) to be in the process of innocently transported by a reasonably prudent person. And certainly not in that quantity.
Sumthin' ain't right here.
Even Ray Charles could see this one.
As I posted above, this lady's probably in more immediate danger from revenge by the cartel for whom she was transportin' the cash, rather than the police!
Excellent analysis, even the Houston newspaper has this article among the "drug news"; and, possibly one thing left out above is that a drug task force was involved in this. Yes, there is probably entrapment sometimes by the police. I don't even like to drive the car late at night on a Saturday night. The police are out watching the roads. Some people argue the very constitutionality of road blocks by the police, a friend of mine got his license suspended for a year, being caught at one for DWI. Such arguments that even road blocks are not constitutional are certainly worth listening to.
-
Let's explore some things here.
(I went to the original article, but its sketchy -- not much info)
The lady was stopped by police for a "traffic violation".
OK so far.
The police can stop you for such things.
Article says:
"The money was discovered during a roadside investigation."
It doesn't state -in print- that a drug/cash sniffing dog was used as a part of that "investigation", but I think it's safe to assume that from the included picture.
I'll admit that I don't know what kind of "threshold" a drug-sniffing dog is trained to detect, but it must be enough so that they don't detect every piece of contaminated cash that one carries in one's pocket (as others in this thread have pointed out, nearly ANY non-new bill of paper money could have a -slight- contamination of drugs).
So I'm going to guess that the dog, during the course of routinely being escorted around the vehicle, "perked up" enough to alert its handlers that this vehicle contained -something- that "passed the threshold of detection" and thus met a certain standard.
At this point, with that standard passed, the concept of "reasonable suspicion" comes into play.
The article doesn't say whether the police then asked the driver to give consent to search the vehicle or not. We don't know that.
But again, the response of the dog warranted that the legal threshold of "reasonable suspicion" was present enough to investigate further.
So, reasonable suspicion gives way to probable cause, and the police searched the vehicle.
Aside:
Wasn't there a Supreme Court case not that long ago that decided that in some instances, the police can search a motor vehicle without taking the time to get a court-ordered warrant? On the grounds that, since it -is- a vehicle, that the vehicle might disappear while the warrant was being obtained?
As soon as the cops saw what WE see in the pic above, the alarm bells would be goin' off.
LOUDLY.
Money stacked and wrapped like that is unlikely (that's an understatement) to be in the process of innocently transported by a reasonably prudent person. And certainly not in that quantity.
Sumthin' ain't right here.
Even Ray Charles could see this one.
As I posted above, this lady's probably in more immediate danger from revenge by the cartel for whom she was transportin' the cash, rather than the police!
No one is saying not to further investigate this. But if there wasn't a pound of cocaine found at the same time there's zero actual evidence the cash was from illegal activity no matter how "suspicious". To take the cash and demand that you have to prove it didn't come from criminal activity is the issue in the absence of actual evidence of criminal activity and is a basic violation of her constitutional rights.
What law says you can't have $250k in your car?
-
Excellent analysis, even the Houston newspaper has this article among the "drug news"; and, possibly one thing left out above is that a drug task force was involved in this. Yes, there is probably entrapment sometimes by the police. I don't even like to drive the car late at night on a Saturday night. The police are out watching the roads. Some people argue the very constitutionality of road blocks by the police, a friend of mine got his license suspended for a year, being caught at one for DWI. Such arguments that even road blocks are not constitutional are certainly worth listening to.
And what actual law did she break based on the evidence found in her car?
-
No one is saying not to further investigate this. But if there wasn't a pound of cocaine found at the same time there's zero actual evidence the cash was from illegal activity no matter how "suspicious". To take the cash and demand that you have to prove it didn't come from criminal activity is the issue in the absence of actual evidence of criminal activity and is a basic violation of her constitutional rights.
What law says you can't have $250k in your car?
The same one that says you can't have a $250k car with no money in it.
-
And what actual law did she break based on the evidence found in her car?
The Sheriff said they are considering "money laundering" charges.
Again, facts are short on this case, I looked for other articles that might have more info but did not find any. Maybe this county has information online on this case. Some counties do maintain some info on the web, jail roster and things like that.
-
Money Laundering - Perhaps that means, they have some cause to believe this law has been broken.
-
The Sheriff said they are considering "money laundering" charges.
Again, facts are short on this case, I looked for other articles that might have more info but did not find any. Maybe this county has information online on this case. Some counties do maintain some info on the web, jail roster and things like that.
That isn't the point. They have to do an investigation and trial to reach any conclusion, that 's called due process. If they find EVIDENCE that the money is laundered then fine. The presence of the money itself with no supporting evidence isn't evidence of anything.
And of course the Sheriff is saying that - they want the money. If she can't prove where the money came from they'll keep it... It is the Sheriff that should have to prove the money was laundered, not the other way around. That's how the presumption of innocence works...
-
@TomSea
I think it's interesting that your guy starts off by talking about Customs and Admiralty Law in connection with contraband issues.
Since when could money be automatically treated as contraband?
I believe that this very peculiar (actually idiotic) position traces to crypto-Socialist Feds who were persuaded, in essence, that might makes right. A lawyer friend of mine maintains that Admiralty Law is one of the favorite tools of would-be tyrants in Anglo countries. My friend points out that the doctrines of Admiralty Law became weirdly popular under FDR and have been supplanting our traditional Common Law throughout our government ever since.
Admiralty Law, he tells me by way of example, has become a sort of paradigm for what we call Administrative Law (the stuff of bureaucratic regulations). For example, if you are ever charged with a regulatory violation, the regulators do not have to prove you are guilty; rather, you have to prove you are innocent. As a related problem, Admiralty Law tends to criminalize innocent mistakes. "No excuses for you!" cries the Admiralty.
The Deep State Bureaucrats love Admiralty Law. If you love Admiralty Law, just wait until they come after you. (And do not trust a guy like Jeff Sessions when he winks and assures us that the Feds are always the good guys.)
-
That isn't the point. They have to do an investigation and trial to reach any conclusion, that 's called due process. If they find EVIDENCE that the money is laundered then fine. The presence of the money itself with no supporting evidence isn't evidence of anything.
And of course the Sheriff is saying that - they want the money. If she can't prove where the money came from they'll keep it... It is the Sheriff that should have to prove the money was laundered, not the other way around. That's how the presumption of innocence works...
The article says they did a "roadside investigation" and another "investigation" is pending.
There are a number of ways, this could be evidence.
"The presence of the money itself with no supporting evidence isn't evidence of anything."
Serial numbers, fingerprints, etc, maybe they are aware it is shady money, though one might consider the possibility remote, it would be possible. For all we know, this woman might be a known runner for drug money and the laundering of, we don't know that law enforcement have no evidence but simply decided to seize the money.
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/article/Mother-with-4-kids-stopped-with-237-000-cash-in-12221416.php
Posting the original info again.
-
The article says they did a "roadside investigation" and another "investigation" is pending.
There are a number of ways, this could be evidence.
"The presence of the money itself with no supporting evidence isn't evidence of anything."
Serial numbers, etc, maybe they are aware it is shady money, though one might consider the possibility remote, it would be possible. For all we know, this woman might be a known runner for drug money and the laundering of, we don't know that law enforcement have no evidence but simply decided to seize the money.
Again... What law was broken by the evidence they found at the time of the seizing of her money?
There is no law against having $250k in cash in your car.
There is no law against putting said cash in a can or whatever. It would be stupid to put in the open.
If they found a pound of illegal drugs you'd have your evidence - they didn't find it.
IF they find evidence later the money was actually laundered by serial number, etc. they can charge her with a crime and seize the money. If she fails to produce the money after convicting her they can extend her sentencing accordingly.
You have the cart before the horse. We have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from this sort of government behavior.
-
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.
If she was personally moving her money from one bank to the next, surely she would have some documents readily at hand, in case of trouble.
Apparently she did not have documents of the type that would have verified to authorities, that her load was legitimately her own.
Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on.
-
It is amazing to read the justifications for a police state, wherein you are guilty until proven innocent - and the idea of due process is irrelevant in the minds of the people who pay lip service to the Constitution and limited government by citing the presumption of guilt as a necessity of keeping us safe from crime.
This is how tyranny is entrenched and forever a people are enslaved to it - happily.
-
Again... What law was broken by the evidence they found at the time of the seizing of her money?
There is no law against having $250k in cash in your car.
There is no law against putting said cash in a can or whatever. It would be stupid to put in the open.
If they found a pound of illegal drugs you'd have your evidence - they didn't find it.
IF they find evidence later the money was actually laundered by serial number, etc. they can charge her with a crime and seize the money. If she fails to produce the money after convicting her they can extend her sentencing accordingly.
You have the cart before the horse. We have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from this sort of government behavior.
Just because the article does not mention the smoking gun for which you look, does not mean it does not exist.
$250,000 and she lives near the border; sure, let her leave with that money, we are sure she will be a good citizen and stay in the US.
Right on that same page, is a link to a bust on Sept. 20th of the police making a $23 million bust of methamphetamine. Unrelated we know but still, it's drug news. It is indicative of the environment that is going on.
-
If she was personally moving her money from one bank to the next, surely she would have some documents readily at hand, in case of trouble.
Apparently she did not have documents of the type that would have verified to authorities, that her load was legitimately her own.
Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on.
So the government no longer has to prove anything to take things from you. You on the other hand have to have a paper trail for whatever you "own" or you can lose it. Is that it?
No wonder the country is so screwed.
-
Excellent analysis, even the Houston newspaper has this article among the "drug news"; and, possibly one thing left out above is that a drug task force was involved in this. Yes, there is probably entrapment sometimes by the police. I don't even like to drive the car late at night on a Saturday night. The police are out watching the roads. Some people argue the very constitutionality of road blocks by the police, a friend of mine got his license suspended for a year, being caught at one for DWI. Such arguments that even road blocks are not constitutional are certainly worth listening to.
Probable cause is found when someone is improperly operating a motor vehicle. Other violations, commonly lighting issues are also considered a valid reason to pull someone over, and then, if there is further cause to believe the person is over the limit with alcohol, they can be cited for a violation.
Stopping vehicles at a checkpoint, en mass or without cause other than their presence on the road is "unreasonable", no matter how justified YOU think it is.
Besides, I tended bar in a blue collar bar, and everyone knew when and where the checkpoints were. They just took different routes.
-
Just because the article does not mention the smoking gun for which you look, does not mean it does not exist.
$250,000 and she lives near the border; sure, let her leave with that money, we are sure she will be a good citizen and stay in the US.
Right on that same page, is a link to a bust on Sept. 20th of the police making a $23 million bust of methamphetamine. Unrelated we know but still, it's drug news. It is indicative of the environment that is going on.
I'd kindly suggest you go research asset forfeitures in more detail. There are many cases that the government takes someone's stuff and never convicted that person they took it from of a crime. That is fundamentally wrong.
-
If she was personally moving her money from one bank to the next, surely she would have some documents readily at hand, in case of trouble.
Apparently she did not have documents of the type that would have verified to authorities, that her load was legitimately her own.
Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on.
Correct, that's the way I read this.
Some parts of our nation are awash in drugs, this heroin that is transported could end up where it is doing a lot of damage in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia though it is in many places. Though, Texas is not especially "awashed" in these drugs, without a doubt, the border is the big transport area for this illegal contraband along with human trafficking and so on.
-
Just because the article does not mention the smoking gun for which you look, does not mean it does not exist.
$250,000 and she lives near the border; sure, let her leave with that money, we are sure she will be a good citizen and stay in the US.
Right on that same page, is a link to a bust on Sept. 20th of the police making a $23 million bust of methamphetamine. Unrelated we know but still, it's drug news. It is indicative of the environment that is going on.
The meth bust is irrelevant unless you can prove a connection. That was some one else. If Your traffic ticket is reported on the same page as someone else's DUI should you lose your license?
The discussion is over seizure versus impoundment. In the latter, the property is automatically returned if no criminal charges are brought. In the former, the property is automatically taken, and you have to prove innocence (of the item) to get it back.
-
Correct, that's the way I read this.
Some parts of our nation are awash in drugs, this heroin that is transported could end up where it is doing a lot of damage in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia though it is in many places. Though, Texas is not especially "awashed" in these drugs, without a doubt, the border is the big transport area for this illegal contraband along with human trafficking and so on.
I don't remember the constitution having exceptions to our rights because criminals "commonly" do things.
-
I'd kindly suggest you go research asset forfeitures in more detail. There are many cases that the government takes someone's stuff and never convicts that person they took it from of a crime. That is fundamentally wrong.
I mentioned such cases earlier, they seize sometimes, small amounts, say they catch some kids who have $1000; and the law says it looks like drug money, this happened in Nevada. No one is ignoring that this occurs; however, I'm not sure if the OP qualifies for such a situation. There is also another case with this man's pickup truck:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/20/has-asset-forfeiture-gone-too-far-truck-seizure-case-sparks-outrage-call-for-change.html
Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change
WASHINGTON – Two years ago, Gerardo Serano – an American citizen, Kentucky farmer and a one-time GOP Kentucky statehouse candidate – was driving his brand new, $60,000 Ford F-250 pick-up truck to visit relatives in Mexico, snapping pictures along the way, when Customs and Border Patrol agents halted him at the border, demanded his cell phone, and asked him why he was taking pictures.
"I just wanted the opening of the bridge. I was gonna take the opening of the bridge, the entrance of the bridge. That’s all I wanted to do," Serano told Fox News.
As a self-proclaimed student of the Constitution, Serano said he knew his rights, and protested to Customs and Border Patrol agents vehemently when they asked him to unlock his phone.
House passes federal asset forfeiture reform bill
By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Monday, September 18, 2017
The police practice of seizing cash or property linked to suspected criminal activity is taking flak on Capitol Hill, and groups advocating for reforming federal asset forfeiture rules see the effort taking off this year.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle fear that asset forfeiture, which doesn’t require a charge or conviction, runs counter to the rule of law and are pushing to follow the lead of several dozen states that already have modified its use.
In a move seen as a rebuke of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Republican-led House last week adopted three amendments to an appropriations bill that would defund efforts by the Justice Department to expand the use of asset forfeiture.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/18/house-passes-federal-asset-forfeiture-reform-bill/
-
The meth bust is irrelevant unless you can prove a connection. That wasd some one else. If Your traffic ticket is rep[orted on the same page as someone else's DUI should you lose your license?
The discussion is over seizure versus impoundment. In the latter, the property is automatically returned if no criminal charges are brought. In the former, the property is automatically taken, and you have to prove innocence (of the item) to get it back.
The discussion is over the monies confiscated by the sheriff's department in a suspicious situation, the original story, post #1. I'm not going to assume they, law enforcement, have done wrong, whether under the law or as a moral injustice as folks are trying to say.
The meth bust is relevant in that it illustrates the large amount of money we are dealing with drug trafficking.
-
I don't remember the constitution have exceptions to our rights because criminals "commonly" do things.
It doesn't; and we do not know the full details of the situation in Rosenberg. I'm not about to make judgement by some superficial details we have. There could be a lot more to the story.
-
It is amazing to read the justifications for a police state, wherein you are guilty until proven innocent - and the idea of due process is irrelevant in the minds of the people who pay lip service to the Constitution and limited government by citing the presumption of guilt as a necessity of keeping us safe from crime.
This is how tyranny is entrenched and forever a people are enslaved to it - happily.
QFT
-
truth_seeker writes:
"Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on."
Yup.
The kids were being used as "props".
-
truth_seeker writes:
"Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on."
Yup.
The kids were being used as "props".
Who needs trials, judges or anything beyond law enforcement then... We've got brilliant people who can determine guilt based on how things look all sans evidence...
-
You want to talk of civil asset forfeiture, I'd look at something like this:
Berkeley Campus Cop Loots Hot Dog Vendor’s Wallet During Citation
By Arnold Carreiro September 23, 2017
chat 4 comments
(Image via Twitter screenshot)
A man simply identified as “Juan” was selling hot dogs at the University of California during a football game on September 10, when a campus bike cop cited him for selling hot dogs without a license. While that is understandable, a concerned citizen who was about to buy some hot dogs for his kids just so happened to film the scene as officer Sean Aranas took all of the cash from the food vendor’s wallet.
When the person filming the incident asked why the officer was ransacking Juan’s wallet, officer Aranas curtly replied with,
We’ll take it to the judge and the judge can decide whether or not it’s right. He doesn't have a permit. Yep, this is law and order in action.
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/09/23/berkeley-campus-cop-loots-hot-dog-vendors-wallet-citation/
To just assume that the sheriff's in Rosenberg did wrong is beyond the details I read in that story.
-
The discussion is over the monies confiscated by the sheriff's department in a suspicious situation, the original story, post #1. I'm not going to assume they, law enforcement, have done wrong, whether under the law or as a moral injustice as folks are trying to say.
The meth bust is relevant in that it illustrates the large amount of money we are dealing with drug trafficking.
Instead, you are assuming this person has done something wrong, that her money is guilty of a crime, and are okay with using unrelated events to bolster the meme that without any further 'proof', her stuff should be forfeit.
I have a friend who lives in close proximity to the largest group of alleged and convicted murderers, drug dealers, and other unsavory sorts in the county. Does that make him a criminal, too?
He lives in a house, outside the jail which is less than a block away, they are inside.
You are using an unrelated event to justify what is being done to this woman. If there is a connection, prove it in court.
-
truth_seeker writes:
"Drug dealers use "mules," to carry their ill gotten wealth. Often young people, and the woman with 4 kids in her vehicles fits a likely scenario; namely her situation is "camouflage," for what is really going on."
Yup.
The kids were being used as "props".
I'm not saying that isn't the case. It may be. Just prove it. Then take the money. In that order.
-
Instead, you are assuming this person has done something wrong, that her money is guilty of a crime, and are okay with using unrelated events to bolster the meme that without any further 'proof', her stuff should be forfeit.
I have a friend who lives in close proximity to the largest group of alleged and convicted murderers, drug dealers, and other unsavory sorts in the county. Does that make him a criminal, too?
He lives in a house, outside the jail which is less than a block away, they are inside.
You are using an unrelated event to justify what is being done to this woman. If there is a connection, prove it in court.
Nobody "justified what is being done to this woman", that drug agencies are working on this matter is pertinent and I just mentioned that story was linked to in the Houston Chronicle as a drug story.
Who worked on this case in Rosenberg? The Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency or maybe in fact, Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area:
Houston HIDTA
Mission Statement: Measurably reduce drug trafficking, thereby reducing the impact of illicit drugs in this and other areas of the country. The specific goals of Houston HIDTA are to "create, broker and nurture multi-agency task force approaches for the measurable disruption and dismantling of narcotic, money laundering and drug gang organizations."
General Information:
Year of Designation: 1990
Geographic Area of Responsibility:
Texas: Aransas, Brooks, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Liberty, Nueces, a color that shall not be named, Refugio, San Patricio and Victoria counties.
Contact: (281) 987-3882/1415
Threat Abstract:
The Houston HIDTA was designated in 1990 as one of the five original HIDTAs. Houston is the nation's fourth largest city and one of the nation's major narcotics gateways. Its proximity to Mexico, transportation infrastructure, racial and ethnic diversity, corporate economy, and international trade continue to make the Houston HIDTA one of the nation's primary distribution hubs, as well as a conduit for the movement of illegal drug proceeds to source countries.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/enforce/hidta2001/hous-fs.html
Look at this, who is working on this case acknowledges this whole environment because it is a major narcotics gateway... so I personally think that because this is an area of high drug trafficking, that story linked in the Houston paper deserves mention because obviously, this is a high drug trafficking area.
Note:
2. Currency/Narcotic Transshipment Interdiction Initiative (CNTI): Formed in FY/97, this collocated, multi-agency Initiative attempts to interdict narcotics and currency and the traffickers thereof, through investigative enforcement at hubs of distribution, i.e. airports, seaports, rail stations, bus stations, and express mail couriers. The intelligence collected in these efforts are monitored and analyzed by the JDIG and PSAT for development into major cases for the MDS, HMLI and participating agencies.
So, in fact, this agency is involved in stopping currency trafficking, transport, whatever term might be correct.
And it goes on, this is all a bit more than Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife or the Keystone Kops stopping someone and seizing their money. This is a real law enforcement operation.
-
Honest people carry that kind of cash in a brinks truck if not in a bank.
Oh I don't know... I paid cash money for my first house - 32.5k in hundred dollar bills - about 30 years ago. Totally legit deal.
When I was in business, I routinely carried 10k in cash on my person, and seldom had less than 2k on me...
-
Oh I don't know... I paid cash money for my first house - 32.5k in hundred dollar bills - about 30 years ago. Totally legit deal.
When I was in business, I routinely carried 10k in cash on my person, and seldom had less than 2k on me...
OK. But your highest example is about well short of a quarter mil and you were buying a house. Paying cash for a house is a rare transaction, especially if it is over $230k. But hey, it could be. She will have her chance to prove it.
-
This entire conversation is an indictment and revelation of the fact that even among those who self-identify as Conservative or Constitutionalist - liberty is no longer valued. Tyranny is valued because the idea of using government to confiscate property that they deem may be used in a crime, and to punish those we hate, and to make us safe and secure is all that matters to most of the population that now lives in this land.
We are conditioned already to accept and endure the scourge of Isms, for our own good and benefit. It's amazing to read all the Apologetics and justifications for it.
And it illustrates that liberty on these shores, is lost - and as Adams warned in 1775 - is never regained.
In this case you are overstating it. She was released, btw. There will be more investigating, as there should be. It is odd behavior to say the least. If it is found to be drug money then the government will probably keep it and use it to fight the same kind of crime. These people cost taxpayers a lot of money as well as the grief they create with their drugs. Many lives end as a result of drug addiction. They deserve to lose the money.
-
OK. But your highest example is about well short of a quarter mil and you were buying a house. Paying cash for a house is a rare transaction, especially if it is over $230k. But hey, it could be. She will have her chance to prove it.
The point is that she shouldn't have to prove it. That should be the other way around. If there is no proof of a crime, she should be on her way, and unmolested.
-
OK. But your highest example is about well short of a quarter mil and you were buying a house. Paying cash for a house is a rare transaction, especially if it is over $230k. But hey, it could be. She will have her chance to prove it.
That $32.5k is about $70k in today's dollars. That isn't chump change.
What law did she break that gave the government the authority to take the money now without due process?
-
In this case you are overstating it. She was released, btw. There will be more investigating, as there should be. It is odd behavior to say the least. If it is found to be drug money then the government will probably keep it and use it to fight the same kind of crime. These people cost taxpayers a lot of money as well as the grief they create with their drugs. Many lives end as a result of drug addiction. They deserve to lose the money.
These cases too often involve the government not bringing any actual charges that bring a conviction. Yet they still take the money.
What criminals do doesn't justify a violation of our basic rights under the constitution.
-
Confiscating that money is theft. Period.
-
Confiscating that money is theft. Period.
I'm sure folks like El Chapo or Al Capone would like that idea. But I won't join in this love-in with murderers.
-
Confiscating that money is theft. Period.
Not if she is convicted. In that case it is no more theft than if we confiscate bank robbery money. Drug money is ill gotten gain. It does not rightly belong to them. If I could choose what to do with it, I'd say either spend it on law enforcement or drug rehab.
-
I'm sure folks like El Chapo or Al Capone would like that idea. But I won't join in this love-in with murderers.
The only love in we are having is with the United States Constitution, Amendments 4, 5, and 14. Read them some time.
Capone was finally hauled in over tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.
-
These cases too often involve the government not bringing any actual charges that bring a conviction. Yet they still take the money.
What criminals do doesn't justify a violation of our basic rights under the constitution.
Government should not keep the money if there are no charges brought and no conviction. But that has not happened here. Time will tell. So far there has been no violation of rights. I will not condemn law enforcement until proven guilty in this case. They are not guilty based on the past guilt of others any more than she is. It was reasonable to hold the money while they investigate. Anything else would have been idiotic.
-
Not if she is convicted. In that case it is no more theft than if we confiscate bank robbery money. Drug money is ill gotten gain. It does not rightly belong to them. If I could choose what to do with it, I'd say either spend it on law enforcement or drug rehab.
With current asset forfeiture laws, no charges ever need be filed against her for the assets to be seized. This is the point we are arguing. The LEOs can take stuff without even charging a crime, much less getting a conviction, and the person has to sue to get it back--and that might not happen even then.
The asset is treated as having committed a crime and is forfeit, without a conviction, or even having charges levied against the owner. The owner has to prove the asset is innocent, if they get their day in court.
Needless to say, such laws provide a profit motive as the department seizing the asset under current law gets a cut.
If they proved the asset is the result of or involved in criminal activity that is another thing, but that isn't the way this works.
-
Government should not keep the money if there are no charges brought and no conviction. But that has not happened here. Time will tell. So far there has been no violation of rights. I will not condemn law enforcement until proven guilty in this case. They are not guilty based on the past guilt of others any more than she is. It was reasonable to hold the money while they investigate. Anything else would have been idiotic.
Then answer, what law did she break to justify the taking of her money based on the evidence they found searching her car?
-
Then answer, what law did she break to justify the taking of her money based on the evidence they found searching her car?
We'll get to that later. Right now, there's a bunch of money and we need to get our hands on it!
-
With current asset forfeiture laws, no charges ever need be filed against her for the assets to be seized. This is the point we are arguing. The LEOs can take stuff without even charging a crime, much less getting a conviction, and the person has to sue to get it back--and that might not happen even then.
The asset is treated as having committed a crime and is forfeit, without a conviction, or even having charges levied against the owner. The owner has to prove the asset is innocent, if they get their day in court.
Needless to say, such laws provide a profit motive as the department seizing the asset under current law gets a cut.
If they proved the asset is the result of or involved in criminal activity that is another thing, but that isn't the way this works.
Not much surprises me anymore, but the fact there are people who actually think this is a good thing on a "Conservative" message board - does bewilder me. It is an indictment of how ignorant we as a society have become of our foundations and why they were put in place the way they were.
I think we have truly arrived at the point where the Constitution truly is dead in all but name and lip service.
Tyranny is applauded and the tracks are being greased to empower the State to perform despotism, and we are reading the justification for its necessity. Agents of the state must be PROVEN guilty and most of the time, even with enough evidence to charge - justice never comes. Evil and treason are rewarded with more power and offices. But a lowly citizen - why - they must PROVE their innocence and be willing to suffer confiscation of property and assets without being formally charged with a crime. As we all know, if we are not guilty then we have nothing to hide from the state. We must prove all our property was properly taxed and paid for - or it becomes the property of the state. And no formal charges are needed anymore because the courts of public opinion are enough to warrant conviction and applause of the state's agents for keeping us 'safe'. Liberty be damned.
Ah well. History teaches that a people unmoored from their foundations will salute whomever it is they think will give them what they want - safety, security, prosperity and punishment upon their neighbors that they blame for their miseries.
This is how a nation high-step marches itself to ruin... to thunderous applause.
-
Not much surprises me anymore, but the fact there are people who actually think this is a good thing on a "Conservative" message board - does bewilder me. It is an indictment of how ignorant we as a society have become of our foundations and why they were put in place the way they were.
I think we have truly arrived at the point where the Constitution truly is dead in all but name and lip service.
Tyranny is applauded and the tracks are being greased to empower the State to perform despotism, and we are reading the justification for its necessity. Agents of the state must be PROVEN guilty and most of the time, even with enough evidence to charge - justice never comes. Evil and treason are rewarded with more power and offices. But a lowly citizen - why - they must PROVE their innocence and be willing to suffer confiscation of property and assets without being formally charged with a crime. As we all know, if we are not guilty then we have nothing to hide from the state. We must prove all our property was properly taxed and paid for - or it becomes the property of the state. And no formal charges are needed anymore because the courts of public opinion are enough to warrant conviction and applause of the state's agents for keeping us 'safe'. Liberty be damned.
Ah well. History teaches that a people unmoored from their foundations will salute whomever it is they think will give them what they want - safety, security, prosperity and punishment upon their neighbors that they blame for their miseries.
This is how a nation high-step marches itself to ruin... to thunderous applause.
Good post @INVAR It's shocking that so many are fine with such tyrannical behavior.
-
@anubias
@AbaraXas
@INVAR
@TomSea
Good post @INVAR It's shocking that so many are fine with such tyrannical behavior.
Am I noticing that the Trumpers are the guys/gals who are most ardently defending CAF?
-
Not much surprises me anymore, but the fact there are people who actually think this is a good thing on a "Conservative" message board - does bewilder me. It is an indictment of how ignorant we as a society have become of our foundations and why they were put in place the way they were.
I think we have truly arrived at the point where the Constitution truly is dead in all but name and lip service.
Tyranny is applauded and the tracks are being greased to empower the State to perform despotism, and we are reading the justification for its necessity. Agents of the state must be PROVEN guilty and most of the time, even with enough evidence to charge - justice never comes. Evil and treason are rewarded with more power and offices. But a lowly citizen - why - they must PROVE their innocence and be willing to suffer confiscation of property and assets without being formally charged with a crime. As we all know, if we are not guilty then we have nothing to hide from the state. We must prove all our property was properly taxed and paid for - or it becomes the property of the state. And no formal charges are needed anymore because the courts of public opinion are enough to warrant conviction and applause of the state's agents for keeping us 'safe'. Liberty be damned.
Ah well. History teaches that a people unmoored from their foundations will salute whomever it is they think will give them what they want - safety, security, prosperity and punishment upon their neighbors that they blame for their miseries.
This is how a nation high-step marches itself to ruin... to thunderous applause.
Yep. The really sad part of this is that it isn't hard to figure out when the government is doing something wrong. Just take how the worst of us are treated, and turn it around. Forget, for a second, about the scum of the Earth being kicked to crap, and turn it all around as if the same thing was being done to you. Would you get a fair trial and a fair shake? Would you, as someone innocent of wrongdoing believe you were being treated fairly? If not, there is something wrong with the way things are being done.
Our Government wasn't conceived to protect the Rights of the wealthy or the high and mighty, so much as to protect the Rights of the folks who are powerless, those people who don't have the wealth or power or even knowledge to fend for themselves. The idea that you have certain God-given Rights whether you are rich or poor, big or small, genius or dumb as a post, and that those Rights should be protected against all comers, including the Government itself, is the basis for our whole way of life in America. It especially applies to those who might be accused of a crime because that is when we are most vulnerable to being deprived of our freedom and all we own.
When those charged with the protection of those Rights craft laws which deny those concepts, they no longer protect our Rights. Those laws need to be removed which circumvent those Rights, and those entrusted to protect our Rights need to be held to the highest standards of protecting them or they need to find a different line of work.
-
The only love in we are having is with the United States Constitution, Amendments 4, 5, and 14. Read them some time.
Capone was finally hauled in over tax evasion, not murder or racketeering.
The keywords which require definition are "Unreasonable search and seizure"
One person's "reasonable," may be another person's "unreasonable"
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
-
The keywords which require definition are "Unreasonable search and seizure"
One person's "reasonable," may be another person's "unreasonable"
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
PROVING the funds are indeed part and profit from criminal activity would be a good place to start.
-
Then answer, what law did she break to justify the taking of her money based on the evidence they found searching her car?
If she has a good reason and can prove the money is hers then she should get it back. They would be fools to let her just drive away with it. Normal, law abiding people do not drive around with that kind of cash even if only from the perspective of self interest. At least while they hold the money it is safe. She is not losing any interest because she was not making any interest. If she were prepared to make a large and legal purchase then that should be easy enough to prove.
I am surprised at how many people think the constitution intended to make law enforcement stupid and blind. This is not about the government stealing money. This is about illegal activity that at a minimum robs tax payers by not paying her portion. It is probably even worse. it is probably money that supports illegal drug activity -- activity that kills people, robs them of their soul and purpose if they live, and costs their families and society at large millions for rehab, for dealing with the crimes they commit while under the influence, etc. Whatever money that industry loses is a good thing for all. They owe it and then some.
Of course the case should make it through the court system and the money should not be kept if she is innocent. To hold the money for a reasonable amount of time is just life. A bank holds a deposit until the funds clear. The lady was already playing fast and loose with the money by carting it around in the back of her car. She is no worse off. If she is cleared of wrong doing she is better off and lesson learned.
Defending this lady is like defending a guy wearing a suicide belt because you can't prove he was getting ready to use it illegally. He claims he is planning on blowing up tree stumps. Hello? People who use explosives legitimately don't wear it that way. People who use cash legitimately don't drive around with a quarter mil in their back seat.
-
PROVING the funds are indeed part and profit from criminal activity would be a good place to start.
Absolutely. In the meantime it should be held and used by no one. The lady is lucky she and her 4 kids were not murdered for the money. If she is innocent she should be able to prove it. Maybe she is an antiques buyer. So where are her antiques? This is not rocket science. That kind of cash in the back of your car is very suspicious and carries many risks. You might be robbed. You might be murdered. You might become a police suspect. Or you might just become a yearly IRS audit victim. If so, thank your own risky behavior. There is no one else to blame. Part of being an honest citizen is keeping good records of your money so you can give a proper accounting when asked. It is part of the responsibility side of citizenship. With rights come responsibilities.
-
If she is innocent she should be able to prove it.
There's your problem, right there. Americans don't prove they're innocent, the legal system has to prove they're guilty. If they have no such proof, she should be on her way, unmolested... with her fortunes intact.
And how exactly, pray tell, does one prove one's cash money? Especially if it has been drawn over time from the banks? Speaking for myself, I certainly couldn't prove where my cash on hand came from. It was all legit, and came down from the bank as a formulaic part of household spending. Once it leaves the bank, there is literally no way to prove where it came from.
Maybe she is an antiques buyer. So where are her antiques? This is not rocket science. That kind of cash in the back of your car is very suspicious and carries many risks. You might be robbed. You might be murdered. You might become a police suspect. Or you might just become a yearly IRS audit victim. If so, thank your own risky behavior. There is no one else to blame. Part of being an honest citizen is keeping good records of your money so you can give a proper accounting when asked. It is part of the responsibility side of citizenship. With rights come responsibilities.
Meh. So how much cash is too much cash to be carrying around? Good deals are always cash. Having cash on hand is just good business, because if you don't have it right there, the deal will go by to the guy who does have it there.
Shoot, just having enough on hand to play in cars is tens of thousands.
And no, it is not incumbent upon me to prove where my money comes from or went - The IRS is the one who must prove that. I know. I have played that game many times.
-
If she is innocent she shouldn't have to be able to prove it.
-
The keywords which require definition are "Unreasonable search and seizure"
One person's "reasonable," may be another person's "unreasonable"
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
Yep. Criminal activity, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
That hasn't happened there.
It is not a requirement of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. No person need even be charged with a crime. The asset is taken with the presumption that the asset is 'guilty' of being the result of illicit activity or used there in, and no proof is needed beyond that suspicion for the government to keep it.
Contrary to the presumption of innocence of a person, the asset is deemed 'guilty' and taken, and the only recourse is for the owner to sue the government to get it back, a proposition which is expensive and has no guarantee of returning the asset, even to someone who is innocent.
If the policeman wants to search your vehicle and you decline, is that probable cause? That is what the whole dog sniff is for--to get probable cause.
Some consider it so, because otherwise, you wouldn't have anything to hide.
As someone who commonly had a 1 ton van full of gear, computers and scientific equipment, and personal effects on the way to and from well sites, the last thing I needed would be for someone who had no regard for the contents of that vehicle, on which my making a living depended, dragging my stuff out on the side of the road and digging through it without regard for sensitive equipment. That, and when traveling from a well, I had commonly worked between 12 and 24 hours prior to loading up and driving home. Tired, but not to the point of falling asleep at the wheel, I might not be so patient, diplomatic, nor really see the need for someone to go digging through my stuff on a fishing expedition.
Argue with that, though, and now you are "resisting" or "interfering with an investigation", so protesting that 'there is nothing to find' is a crime, too. Now, you can be arrested for a chargeable offense.
Those who watch the shows like "Cops" may be inured to the fact that obviously the people being patted down, having their cars searched, handcuffed and having their pockets turned out invariably are doing something illegal. Yeah, what's the fun of showing mom and pop getting shook down and not getting arrested for drugs or paraphernalia? It makes for lousy reality TeeVee, but the message that gets across to the average viewer is that somehow this only happens to the guilty, never to innocent people. In the meantime, those same TV watchers will be subtly convinced this only happens to bad guys and never to people who are conducting legitimate business or simply in transit.
If there is a reason, some probable cause other than being suspicious of everyone as a profession and seeing something they don't understand, that's one thing. Picking people at random isn't probable cause. Taking their stuff without charging them with a crime isn't right, and without convicting them, there is no standard of proof that anything is the result of illegal activity other than "suspicion" by someone who is paid to be suspicious. That's a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt".
-
If she has a good reason and can prove the money is hers then she should get it back. They would be fools to let her just drive away with it. Normal, law abiding people do not drive around with that kind of cash even if only from the perspective of self interest. At least while they hold the money it is safe. She is not losing any interest because she was not making any interest. If she were prepared to make a large and legal purchase then that should be easy enough to prove.
I am surprised at how many people think the constitution intended to make law enforcement stupid and blind. This is not about the government stealing money. This is about illegal activity that at a minimum robs tax payers by not paying her portion. It is probably even worse. it is probably money that supports illegal drug activity -- activity that kills people, robs them of their soul and purpose if they live, and costs their families and society at large millions for rehab, for dealing with the crimes they commit while under the influence, etc. Whatever money that industry loses is a good thing for all. They owe it and then some.
Of course the case should make it through the court system and the money should not be kept if she is innocent. To hold the money for a reasonable amount of time is just life. A bank holds a deposit until the funds clear. The lady was already playing fast and loose with the money by carting it around in the back of her car. She is no worse off. If she is cleared of wrong doing she is better off and lesson learned.
Defending this lady is like defending a guy wearing a suicide belt because you can't prove he was getting ready to use it illegally. He claims he is planning on blowing up tree stumps. Hello? People who use explosives legitimately don't wear it that way. People who use cash legitimately don't drive around with a quarter mil in their back seat.
You went off the rails of the constitution with your first sentence.
Based on the evidence reported she broke no law justifying them taking the cash. As soon as the law isn't the guiding line then you have lawlessness. Next you'll say that we should get permission, a permit, from government to carry large amounts of cash on our person. And then you wonder where our liberties went and why government is in every aspect of our lives these days. You can't have it both ways.
And regarding explosives, there are laws about carrying explosives around without a permit.
-
One person's "reasonable," may be another person's "unreasonable"
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
God forbid for you the day soon comes when many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize your home, your wealth and your property because you are white and guilty of the crime of White Privilege because of your skin color and heritage.
It will be fun to listen to people like you squeal in outrage when the "courts" will be in agreement with them, and you have no standing whatsoever, because you empowered the precedent that you must prove your innocence from any charges levied at you.
As you said - one person's "reasonable" will one day be your "unreasonable" - and then - too bad for you.
-
Huh? That is what our court system is all about. You could paint any arrest in that way. They are innocent until proven guilty so....what? No holding them or requiring bail? When there is enough suspicion then you get what you get. The lady was stupid to play so loose with that much money in the first place. We are a nation of laws and if you break them, you pay. Our legal system is set up where you get your day in court and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But suspicious activity will land you in the middle for a while. It is a process. You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
-
Yep. Criminal activity, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
That hasn't happened there.
It is not a requirement of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. No person need even be charged with a crime. The asset is taken with the presumption that the asset is 'guilty' of being the result of illicit activity or used there in, and no proof is needed beyond that suspicion for the government to keep it.
Contrary to the presumption of innocence of a person, the asset is deemed 'guilty' and taken, and the only recourse is for the owner to sue the government to get it back, a proposition which is expensive and has no guarantee of returning the asset, even to someone who is innocent.
If the policeman wants to search your vehicle and you decline, is that probable cause? That is what the whole dog sniff is for--to get probable cause.
Some consider it so, because otherwise, you wouldn't have anything to hide.
As someone who commonly had a 1 ton van full of gear, computers and scientific equipment, and personal effects on the way to and from well sites, the last thing I needed would be for someone who had no regard for the contents of that vehicle, on which my making a living depended, dragging my stuff out on the side of the road and digging through it without regard for sensitive equipment. That, and when traveling from a well, I had commonly worked between 12 and 24 hours prior to loading up and driving home. Tired, but not to the point of falling asleep at the wheel, I might not be so patient, diplomatic, nor really see the need for someone to go digging through my stuff on a fishing expedition.
Argue with that, though, and now you are "resisting" or "interfering with an investigation", so protesting that 'there is nothing to find' is a crime, too. Now, you can be arrested for a chargeable offense.
Those who watch the shows like "Cops" may be inured to the fact that obviously the people being patted down, having their cars searched, handcuffed and having their pockets turned out invariably are doing something illegal. Yeah, what's the fun of showing mom and pop getting shook down and not getting arrested for drugs or paraphernalia? It makes for lousy reality TeeVee, but the message that gets across to the average viewer is that somehow this only happens to the guilty, never to innocent people. In the meantime, those same TV watchers will be subtly convinced this only happens to bad guys and never to people who are conducting legitimate business or simply in transit.
If there is a reason, some probable cause other than being suspicious of everyone as a profession and seeing something they don't understand, that's one thing. Picking people at random isn't probable cause. Taking their stuff without charging them with a crime isn't right, and without convicting them, there is no standard of proof that anything is the result of illegal activity other than "suspicion" by someone who is paid to be suspicious. That's a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I'll just add that with current asset forfeiture laws law enforcement has a strong incentive to find and take your money whenever they can. They often get to keep it and use it for their own uses. If it is fought in court, it doesn't come out their budget. That incentive further corrupts the entire process. It turns law enforcement into legalized highwaymen.
-
Huh? That is what our court system is all about. You could paint any arrest in that way. They are innocent until proven guilty so....what? No holding them or requiring bail? When there is enough suspicion then you get what you get. The lady was stupid to play so loose with that much money in the first place. We are a nation of laws and if you break them, you pay. Our legal system is set up where you get your day in court and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But suspicious activity will land you in the middle for a while. It is a process. You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
Arrests are made by evidence someone broke the law. Not suspected of breaking the law without evidence.
What law did she break as evidenced by her car stop.
-
You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
No, I am objecting to amounts of cash being suspicious behavior.
If I were still a player, and went over to the big car auction in WA, I would surely be traveling with 50 to 100 k in cash. And all I have to do is get pulled over and searched by a cop and suddenly all my cash is seized? That is nothing but bullshit.
-
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
"Many fine citizens" don't realize what is at stake in this. Creeping Socialism is Creeping Tyranny. Police departments, in fact, have been plausibly accused of raising phony suspicions against guys they don't like in order to seize assets for their departments--and there is no meaningful oversight to block this where it needs to be blocked, i.e. at the very start.
***
You don't seem to understand fully why so many of us on TBR are outraged over CAF. This is seen in the fact that you finessed the argument in your post by talking about the manifestly appropriate seizure of funds associated with criminal activity. You have actually created a straw man argument. The problem is that we are not talking about "mere" criminal activity. We are talking about suspected criminal activity, which under Common Law is not criminal activity at all. The activity may be presumed criminal activity under Admiralty Law, but our Framers did not envision Admiralty Law being used in this way against regular citizens. The legal requirement of due process for all regular citizens should be understood as slamming the door on the abusive application of Admiralty Law (which got really bad under the Socialist FDR).
And the fact that our courts don't always seem to be worried about the whole thing is not a proper argument. Our courts have been straying away from the intent of our Framers for a very long time. And it is getting worse--because more than half of our federal judges are progessivists. Well over 30 percent of federal judges (forty percent?) are Obama appointees.
-
Huh? That is what our court system is all about. You could paint any arrest in that way. They are innocent until proven guilty so....what? No holding them or requiring bail? When there is enough suspicion then you get what you get. The lady was stupid to play so loose with that much money in the first place. We are a nation of laws and if you break them, you pay. Our legal system is set up where you get your day in court and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But suspicious activity will land you in the middle for a while. It is a process. You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
Police can be suspicious a particular person murdered someone else. Without actual evidence of that they cannot arrest them for that crime. It is how our legal systems works. Evidence is finding blood, the likely weapon used, etc... Absent those things they have no evidence regardless of their suspicions.
Carrying cash is not a crime. If you want it to be, pass a law that says so. Let people know what the threshold of legally carrying cash is so they can have some clue when law enforcement will take it or not.
If someone unknown to you wants to buy your $150,000 collector car, are you going to take a check? A wire transfer? You do know that the bank can later reverse those things, even the wire transfer, when they determine that the source of the money was fraudulent. Lots of people use cash at auctions and specialty transactions, especially when trying to get a better deal. When the cash and item change hands the deal is complete without further complications.
-
Huh? That is what our court system is all about. You could paint any arrest in that way. They are innocent until proven guilty so....what? No holding them or requiring bail? When there is enough suspicion then you get what you get. The lady was stupid to play so loose with that much money in the first place. We are a nation of laws and if you break them, you pay. Our legal system is set up where you get your day in court and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But suspicious activity will land you in the middle for a while. It is a process. You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
What drugs? What proof?
This person was searched after someone got the doggie to give them probable cause and the money was found then.
Did the dog alert for 'drugs'? Probably, but that doesn't mean this had anything to do with drugs. With that much currency, just the contamination on the bills was likely enough for them to get a reaction from the drug dog.
As for "drugs" read this:
In a study reported in Forensic Science International, A.J. Jenkins, at the Office of the Cuyahoga County Coroner (Cleveland, OH), the author reports the analysis of ten randomly collected one-dollar bills from five cities, and tested for cocaine, heroin, 6-acetylmorphine (also called "6-AM"), morphine, codeine, methamphetamine, amphetamine and phencyclidine (PCP). Bills were then immersed in acetonitrile for two hours prior to extraction and subjected to Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis. Results demonstrated that "92% of the bills were positive for cocaine with a mean amount of 28.75 ± 139.07 micrograms per bill, a median of 1.37 μg per bill, and a range of 0.01-922.72 μg per bill. Heroin was detected in seven bills in amounts ranging from 0.03 to 168.5 μg per bill: 6-AM and morphine were detected in three bills; methamphetamine and amphetamine in three and one bills, respectively, and PCP was detected in two bills in amounts of 0.78 and 1.87 μg per bill. Codeine was not detected in any of the one-dollar bills analyzed". The study confirmed that although paper currency was most often contaminated with cocaine, other drugs of abuse may also be detected in bills.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency)
Now, once again, with feeling....
Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws DO NOT require that the owner of the asset be convicted, nor even charged with a crime. The assumption is that the asset is 'guilty' of being something derived from illicit activity or used in illicit activity, and the asset is deemed forfeit, confiscated , and the proceeds from the sale of the asset are distributed, in part to the agency which confiscated it. The asset need not be anything illegal, in and of itself.
In order for an person not charged with, or found not guilty in court of any charges, to get their property back, that person must sue the confiscating jurisdiction to get the asset back. There are no guarantees that the expenses incurred will result in the return of the original asset. While impounded property may be returned after someone accused is exonerated, NO property seized under Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws is automatically returned to the owner, and often, there are no charges to be cleared of and no trial involved in the seizure of the asset. There is a distinct difference in the legal treatment of "impounded property" and assets seized under Asset Forfeiture laws.
Small confiscations of cash are commonly not challenged, for economic reasons (costs more to sue than the amount taken), not because anyone is guilty. A few thousand dollars can be taken before the cost of getting the asset back is at break-even with the legal costs to do so, and that is a risk, because absolutely nothing is guaranteed in court.
We like to think that is all fair and that, but sometimes it just isn't.
As I said up thread. I'm all for the death penalty for those who deal illicit drugs. Give 'em a trial, get the verdict, march 'em to the yard, I'd volunteer for the firing squad. I can't recount the cost to my family over this sh*t, nor can I adequately express my contempt for the pushers out there in any language. Profanity is inadequate.
But I am still not willing to throw our 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment Rights out the window and create major incentive for corruption of LEOs to fight this.
-
I'll just add that with current asset forfeiture laws law enforcement has a strong incentive to find and take your money whenever they can. They often get to keep it and use it for their own uses. If it is fought in court, it doesn't come out their budget. That incentive further corrupts the entire process. It turns law enforcement into legalized highwaymen.
Precisely. Creating an environment that encourages police to act lawlessly (will all of that money be logged in under CAF? that's a fair amount of paperwork). Smaller seizures of a few hundred dollars won't be fought--lawyers cost too much. Ka-Ching!
While most may well be honest officers, the temptation will always exist to just shake people down and 'score' (especially 'out of staters' who likely won't be back through).
We talk about the 'culture of corruption', but this sort of law just fosters it.
-
Huh? That is what our court system is all about. You could paint any arrest in that way. They are innocent until proven guilty so....what? No holding them or requiring bail?
You have to be charged with a crime in order to be held. Lots of people who get pulled over get charged with having drug paraphernalia or drugs ON them, because having drugs on you is illegal, so they get charged with possession and arrested.
When there is enough suspicion then you get what you get. The lady was stupid to play so loose with that much money in the first place.
Suspicion is not a warrant for arrest without evidence. What was she charged with that enabled the money to be confiscated?
We are a nation of laws and if you break them, you pay.
What law was it exactly that she broke that she was charged with that granted the cops authority to confiscate her money?
Our legal system is set up where you get your day in court and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But suspicious activity will land you in the middle for a while.
Please cite for us where that is located in the Constitution- that we get to go to limbo on suspicious activity without evidence and without being charged with a crime.
It is a process.
Yes. A process that leads to tyranny.
You guys want to blame law enforcement for noticing and acting on the suspicious behavior. Is it perhaps because you don't like drug laws in the first place?
It is because I learned firsthand how backwards and corrupt our law enforcement, courts and system is.
I no longer have blind faith and trust in the government and their agents that you do.
Government has proven itself lawless and corrupt and so have their agents. They have broken the covenant and I for one will never trust them again.
I guard my liberty that jealously.
-
I commend Law Enforcement on this again, we don't know the particulars, so all of this is idol speculation. If one wants to bring up the hot dog seller, that's valid, there is not enough here to know. The Border Patrol may have wrongfully confiscated that one gent's truck, mentioned earlier in the thread.
And the drug task force has as one of its duties as in fact, to prevent laundering and the flow of currency where needed.
The specific goals of Houston HIDTA are to "create, broker and nurture multi-agency task force approaches for the measurable disruption and dismantling of narcotic, money laundering and drug gang organizations."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/enforce/hidta2001/hous-fs.html
For all we know, this does not qualify as a civil asset forfeiture; and no one will be putting down the men and women in blue who protect us down on such flimsy proof while I'm around. They are trying to prevent the inflow of contraband in the USA.
No proof has been offered that this is definitely civil asset forfeiture.
-
What law was it exactly that she broke that she was charged with that granted the cops authority to confiscate her money?
They just don't get it no matter how many times it is spelled out in detail it seems...
-
They just don't get it no matter how many times it is spelled out in detail it seems...
They don't want to, because this kind of behavior by the State is a desired action that they do not consider to be tyranny, but a necessary action to give them the illusion of safety against the circumstances they fear.
Until of course this precedent of tyranny and confiscation of property without charges and due process is visited upon them. But they will have enabled it to become an institution.
-
She might be low on the totem pole, taking the goods to Mr. Big; maybe they don't care to charge her over this. Maybe she makes a deal to help them catch the higher ups.
-
She might be low on the totem pole, taking the goods to Mr. Big; maybe they don't care to charge her over this. Maybe she makes a deal to help them catch the higher ups.
Right.
If this is drug money, and they release her, how long do you think she will live?