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

[TomSea]

Money Laundering - Perhaps that means, they have some cause to believe this law has been broken.

[DB]

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...

[the_doc]

@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.)
     
 

[TomSea]

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.

[DB]

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.

[truth_seeker]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[DB]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[DB]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[DB]

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.

[TomSea]

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/

[TomSea]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Oceander]

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

[Fishrrman]

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".

[DB]

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...

[TomSea]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[roamer_1]

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...