Armed robbery

[Quantum Windbag]

This is what the war on drugs has led to, armed thugs taking money from from people traveling the highways.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTeH9D_tN-k]YouTube - ‪Tennesee Law Enforcement Stealing Money from out of state innocent motorist‬‏[/ame]

 

[Mr. H.]

From the video, it appears that the owners of the cash have legal recourse to get their money back.
Plus- if the money is even suspected to have been obtained illegally, then you'd think the law would require it be kept in tact as evidence.

 

[Missourian]

It's better to take the money than the drugs.Take the money and use it to take more money, and use that to take more money.At worst you either drive up the drug costs, reduce the profit incentive for the dealers or both.The best part is the drug dealers fund their own undoing, law enforcement judo, if you will...it's genius.Every state should be doing this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the video, it appears that the owners of the cash have legal recourse to get their money back.
Plus- if the money is even suspected to have been obtained illegally, then you'd think the law would require it be kept in tact as evidence.

Try it sometime. Since the police are not accusing you of a crime, they are accusing your property, it is actually guilty until proven innocent. That means that you have to do to court and prove that your money did not come from drug dealing. If you think that is easy I need to get rid of a bridge I no longer use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's better to take the money than the drugs.Take the money and use it to take more money, and use that to take more money.At worst you either drive up the drug costs, reduce the profit incentive for the dealers or both.The best part is the drug dealers fund their own undoing, law enforcement judo, if you will...it's genius.Every state should be doing this.

I wonder if you would feel the same after the police take away your house and sell it to fund their acquisition of a couple of new squad cars and a helicopter.

 

[Missourian]

It's better to take the money than the drugs.Take the money and use it to take more money, and use that to take more money.At worst you either drive up the drug costs, reduce the profit incentive for the dealers or both.The best part is the drug dealers fund their own undoing, law enforcement judo, if you will...it's genius.Every state should be doing this.

I wonder if you would feel the same after the police take away your house and sell it to fund their acquisition of a couple of new squad cars and a helicopter.

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's better to take the money than the drugs.Take the money and use it to take more money, and use that to take more money.At worst you either drive up the drug costs, reduce the profit incentive for the dealers or both.The best part is the drug dealers fund their own undoing, law enforcement judo, if you will...it's genius.Every state should be doing this.

I wonder if you would feel the same after the police take away your house and sell it to fund their acquisition of a couple of new squad cars and a helicopter.

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

 

[Smash_Hits]

This is what the war on drugs has led to, armed thugs taking money from from people traveling the highways.

YouTube - ‪Tennesee Law Enforcement Stealing Money from out of state innocent motorist‬‏

I never though I'd say it... I agree with you, Quantum. The "war" on drugs is wasting our time and money. Having a war on drugs is like having a war on alcohol. It's just idiotic.

 

[TheBrain]

I wonder if you would feel the same after the police take away your house and sell it to fund their acquisition of a couple of new squad cars and a helicopter.

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

First of all, I agree with you about civil forfeiture laws. I don't like them. BUT you are not entirely correct QW in a civil forfeiture case, you do NOT have to prove your property was not involved in a crime, the state still has to prove their case, it's just a different, and much easier to obtain, standard. No different than if you sue someone for committing a crime for you the burden of proof that they are guilty is much lower than in a criminal case.

Second of all, a man has to ask himself what a person is hauling $200K around in a semi trailer for... IS that itself enough to rise to the presumption of guilt of either drug trafficking or something more nefarious? I would suggest that statistics could EASILY be read that way.

 

[Immanuel]

Those cops are more like pirates than law enforcement officers.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

I wonder if you would feel the same after the police take away your house and sell it to fund their acquisition of a couple of new squad cars and a helicopter.

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

First of all, I agree with you about civil forfeiture laws. I don't like them. BUT you are not entirely correct QW in a civil forfeiture case, you do NOT have to prove your property was not involved in a crime, the state still has to prove their case, it's just a different, and much easier to obtain, standard. No different than if you sue someone for committing a crime for you the burden of proof that they are guilty is much lower than in a criminal case.

Second of all, a man has to ask himself what a person is hauling $200K around in a semi trailer for... IS that itself enough to rise to the presumption of guilt of either drug trafficking or something more nefarious? I would suggest that statistics could EASILY be read that way.

No they do not.

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

Asset forfeiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962545.MAN.pdf

All they need is probable cause, and the burden of proof shifts to the aggrieved party under civil forfeiture laws. They are written by the government to help raise money for the government. Why would they want to make that harder on themselves.

As for your second point, just because it is suspicious does not make it illegal. The burden of proof should always lie with the government before they can even touch the money.

I will say up front that the guy was incredibly stupid for letting them search the truck at all though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry man, I go out of my way not to transport ziplock baggies containing 200 grand in cash in the back of a loaded semi.

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

 

[Missourian]

If someone tells the police they bought marijuana from you that is all the probable cause they need to get a search warrant. If they then find one seed you stepped in and tracked into your house they can reasonable suspect that you are a drug dealer and seize your house, your car, your bank accounts, and everything else you own. You then have the recourse of of hiring a lawyer with your non existent assets and file a suit to prove that not only are you not a drug dealer, but that everything you own came from traceable sources of income that had nothing to do with drugs.

If someone ever pissed me off to the point that I wanted to ruin them I would rat them out as drug dealers and let the police take everything from them.

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

 

[Immanuel]

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

My impression from the video is that the owner of the truck in question IS involved in something dishonest most likely drug trafficking.

On the other hand, the report states that the cops are pulling drivers over indiscriminately and confiscating any large amount of cash they find. This could just be a couple of grand that people are using for vacation money. I have a major problem with that! This appears to be nothing less than the county governments shaking down tourists. Hell, it is something I would expect when driving through Mexico not the USA.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

The logical conclusion is irrelevant. If said LEO cannot take the owner of those bags to court and convict him of a criminal act, he gets to drive away with them. Period.

What is to stop the police from pulling you over, find the $5,500 you just got paid back from all the years you loaned your deadbeat brother money, conclude there is no reason for any non drug dealer to be carrying that amount of cash, and confiscate it? Any policy which allows the police to confiscate money simply because you have it will inevitably catch someone who is innocent.

Due process is not something that applies only when you think the facts make a person look innocent, it applies all the time. Don't let your belief that this particular instance caught someone who is a drug dealer cause you to support a policy that is wring. This is not about the one instance in the video, it is about civil asset forfeiture in general.

 

[FA_Q2]

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

The logical conclusion is irrelevant. If said LEO cannot take the owner of those bags to court and convict him of a criminal act, he gets to drive away with them. Period.

What is to stop the police from pulling you over, find the $5,500 you just got paid back from all the years you loaned your deadbeat brother money, conclude there is no reason for any non drug dealer to be carrying that amount of cash, and confiscate it? Any policy which allows the police to confiscate money simply because you have it will inevitably catch someone who is innocent.

Due process is not something that applies only when you think the facts make a person look innocent, it applies all the time. Don't let your belief that this particular instance caught someone who is a drug dealer cause you to support a policy that is wring. This is not about the one instance in the video, it is about civil asset forfeiture in general.

My god, where are all the totalitarians coming from. This point is so obvious that it should not even need to be made. How can anyone support the police’s ability to confiscate anything based solely on the idea that “it looks suspicious?” Where are our rights?

 

[Douger]

So all of a sudden a guy with a couple hundred grand is ............. ?
I'm buying 16 more acres tomorrow and have 65 grand in cash at arms reach. Gee. I hope nobody stops me on the way to the guys farm.....OH. WAIT.
I'm not there in duh land of duh "free" ! Whew !

 

[editec]

It is a terrible idea to incentivize our police by giving then the right to confiscate ANYTHING based on nothing more than they FEEL LIKE IT.

5th amendment right to own private property, much, do you think?

That concept is OUT THE WINDOW thanks to the war on drugs, folks.

Now I am not saying all cops are corrupt but I am saying that this policy encourages police corruption.

 

[George Costanza]

If only people knew their rights and had the guts to look a cop in the eye and insist on them.

"You got anything illegal in your car here?"

"No."

"Mind if we take a look?"

Proper answer: "Yes, I do mind. If you want to get a search warrant, then you can search my car. Until then, you cannot." In order to get a search warrant, the cop is going to have to convince a judge that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant. If the only reason for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, with nothing more, the cop is either going to have to lie in the search warrant affidavit, or not get the warrant. If he lies, the search warrant affidavit is subject to extreme scrutiny once the case gets to court and if he is caught lying, his ass is grass.

Answer usually given (or answer which the police often claim is given): "Sure, go ahead."

Don't even get me started on police agencies confiscating "drug money" that ends up in their own coffers.