SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 13,919
- 6,509
- 365
The most hated amendment by the Right is the Fourth. This is the one that prevents the cops from searching anyone and anywhere they bloody well feel like. The Right is the one who argues that there are so many exceptions, even bordering on an exception if the cop has a hunch, or psychic vision, or the Magic 8 Ball says yes when you ask it if he is a criminal.
Hot Air does grant that Civil Forfeiture is not exactly a great way to do things. It's nice that they at least object to the seizing of people's property without due process. However, the problem is that the author Jazz Shaw objects to the whole fruit of the poison tree argument that is used to exclude evidence that is obtained illegally, or in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I've heard that before, but one thing I've never heard is what they propose to do about illegally seized evidence? I mean, the Right Law and Order types always object to it, but what do they propose is done to punish violations of the Fourth Amendment?
This particular violation followed this pattern. An RV was traveling west, the defendant was driving his brothers RV. It was not stolen, and was in his possession legally. He was pulled over by a cop who felt that he was transporting drugs or drug money. I'll get to that in a minute. The cop asked to search and was denied. Without evidence of some contraband, which could not be gotten without a Dog, which the Deputy did not have access to, that was the end of it.
But not for the Deputy. He called ahead to the next county, and alerted them. They again stopped the RV for a "minor traffic violation" and by an amazing coincidence had a dog waiting. The dog "keyed" on the vehicle. The cops got the warrant, and searched, and found no drugs, but did find money, nearly $168k. The cops found "drug residue" on the money and seized it under civil forfeiture.
The Judge ordered the money returned since there was no evidence that the money had been gotten illegally, and the search was problematic. Calling ahead and arranging for someone else to finish what you started is problematic in my mind. You had your swing at the ball, tough shit.
So now "coordinated traffic stops" are a Fourth Amendment violation? - Hot Air
Police run all sorts of efforts to "interdict" drugs and drug money on the interstates and highways. It is a pipeline of sorts. Drugs come up through Mexico usually, and are distributed north, and east, to the rest of the nation. The Money tends to move west, and south. Now, by a curious coincidence the police prefer to stop the westbound traffic. If they seize the drugs, then the packages are tested, and stored, and after the trial sometime in the future, destroyed. But if they seize money, with drug residue on it, the money is deposited into a bank, where the cash with the drug residue will be kept in circulation, and be seized some time in the future, and the funds unless ordered returned to the victim of the theft are used by the police departments to buy new cars for the crooks stealing the cash in the first place.
No, I wasn't making it up. The cops are really doing this.
Hot Air does grant that Civil Forfeiture is not exactly a great way to do things. It's nice that they at least object to the seizing of people's property without due process. However, the problem is that the author Jazz Shaw objects to the whole fruit of the poison tree argument that is used to exclude evidence that is obtained illegally, or in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I've heard that before, but one thing I've never heard is what they propose to do about illegally seized evidence? I mean, the Right Law and Order types always object to it, but what do they propose is done to punish violations of the Fourth Amendment?
This particular violation followed this pattern. An RV was traveling west, the defendant was driving his brothers RV. It was not stolen, and was in his possession legally. He was pulled over by a cop who felt that he was transporting drugs or drug money. I'll get to that in a minute. The cop asked to search and was denied. Without evidence of some contraband, which could not be gotten without a Dog, which the Deputy did not have access to, that was the end of it.
But not for the Deputy. He called ahead to the next county, and alerted them. They again stopped the RV for a "minor traffic violation" and by an amazing coincidence had a dog waiting. The dog "keyed" on the vehicle. The cops got the warrant, and searched, and found no drugs, but did find money, nearly $168k. The cops found "drug residue" on the money and seized it under civil forfeiture.
The Judge ordered the money returned since there was no evidence that the money had been gotten illegally, and the search was problematic. Calling ahead and arranging for someone else to finish what you started is problematic in my mind. You had your swing at the ball, tough shit.
So now "coordinated traffic stops" are a Fourth Amendment violation? - Hot Air
Police run all sorts of efforts to "interdict" drugs and drug money on the interstates and highways. It is a pipeline of sorts. Drugs come up through Mexico usually, and are distributed north, and east, to the rest of the nation. The Money tends to move west, and south. Now, by a curious coincidence the police prefer to stop the westbound traffic. If they seize the drugs, then the packages are tested, and stored, and after the trial sometime in the future, destroyed. But if they seize money, with drug residue on it, the money is deposited into a bank, where the cash with the drug residue will be kept in circulation, and be seized some time in the future, and the funds unless ordered returned to the victim of the theft are used by the police departments to buy new cars for the crooks stealing the cash in the first place.
No, I wasn't making it up. The cops are really doing this.
