Carry too much $ the police will take it!!!!

[Phalex]

Cash from the sale of a giant pile of drugs is illegal.

Once the drugs are converted to cash, how do you figure it's illegal?? The act of possession is a crime, and the act of distribution is a crime, but if they can't catch you in the act or prove there was and act, it's just a pile of cash.

I think I'm going to start pulling over armored cars and seizing their loads of cash. I mean c'mon, where'd a couple of guys making $8.00 an hour really get an armored car full of cash??

 

[smeet]

Exactly. I can't understand the problem with the confiscation arrangements. Can anyone imagine a situation where somebody could be driving around with a (legally acquired) sum like $26k and then not be able to explain satisfactorily how they got it or make a legitimate claim for its return?

Are you serious? The police make a judgement as to what is satisfactory. They can do what they want. I have been stopped and handcuffed behind my car and questioned for an hour with my 2-year old in the car, just because the police thought I looked suspicious. When they released me there was no apology. I have a PhD, a good job, and I've NEVER been in trouble with the law. If there had been a pile of cash in my car, maybe they would have taken it cuz as he said "you gotta unusual name. Where you frum?".

 

[BassyBill]

Serious? Me?

I guess you're right and this situation is all wrong after all, then? So, let's just stop trying to take any positive action about drugs and let the dealers keep their money. You know, kind of accept any attempts to solve the problem will fail and just give up.

 

[Relic]

I guess this is all wrong after all. So, let's just stop trying to take any positive action about drugs and let the dealers keep their money. You know, kind of accept any attempts to solve the problem will fail and just give up.

Alternatively, we can just start confiscating money from anyone who some random officer deems "suspicious". We're bound to get some drug money in the mix

 

[smeet]

Serious? Me? I guess you're right and this situation is all wrong after all, then? So, let's just stop trying to take any positive action about drugs and let the dealers keep their money. You know, kind of accept any attempts to solve the problem will fail and just give up.

Yes I'm right and the situation is all wrong after all. Unless you advocate that the police should be able to do anything they want if they are suspicious??? I was detained for racial reasons. No more. No less. Is that OK?

I guess if we take enough money from people, eventually you will get some drug money, just by luck. Does the end justify the means? Maybe all suspicious persons should be shot, that would fix the problem too.

Or maybe we could abide by the law when trying to enforce the law. How does that sound?

 

[Marlat]

Yes I'm right and the situation is all wrong after all. Unless you advocate that the police should be able to do anything they want if they are suspicious??? I was detained for racial reasons. No more. No less. Is that OK?

I guess if we take enough money from people, eventually you will get some drug money, just by luck. Does the end justify the means? Maybe all suspicious persons should be shot, that would fix the problem too.

Or maybe we could abide by the law when trying to enforce the law. How does that sound?

Does the law not permit the action that was taken?

 

[glamrockin]

Serious? Me?

I guess you're right and this situation is all wrong after all, then? So, let's just stop trying to take any positive action about drugs and let the dealers keep their money. You know, kind of accept any attempts to solve the problem will fail and just give up.

There were no drugs! If taking large amounts of money from random people is our approach to the drug war, I suggest taking small amounts of money from musicians!

 

[Relic]

Well, who needs to sell drugs to make money anyway? You could always be a crooked cop in Ft Wayne. You know, confiscate $28,000...oops, $26,000 here, confiscate $17,000...oops, did it again, I meant $13,000 there..
joking of course but this is far too easy to abuse.
BTW, I wonder if one of those cops get pulled over, another cop confiscates his/her money? You know, if he claims to have taken it from a "suspect" he could always be lying.

 

[JEberle]

Under the controlled substances act (21 USC, Sec 881 (a)(6) any cash suspected of being used in connection with controlled substances is subject to forfeiture. However, under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the burden of proof is placed solely on law enforcement in order to retain that cash.

In otherwords, if you're carry a boat load of cash (typically anything over $10K) and you can't give reasonable proof as to why you have it, it can be seized, but it will be returned if it cannot be proven that it was used in illegal activity. Simply said, if you want it back, show up with proof it was yours.

US Constitution, Amendment 4
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.

US Constitution, Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

According to the 4th and 5th Amendments that law is unconstitutional. Please learn your rights before they take them all...

 

[Fishheadjoe]

+1 JEBerle! Most importantly, people need to understand their rights and not allow them to be stripped away. People died defending those rights, these days people believe that giving up those rights will make their lives easier and or better.
Stealing from people because they may be a drug dealer is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Fishheadjoe

 

[smeet]

Does the law not permit the action that was taken?

I'm not a lawyer, but in the US a "suspect" is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. I believe taking money from somebody without provable cause is considered stealing even if you are a cop.

 

[Marlat]

I'm not a lawyer, but in the US a "suspect" is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. I believe taking money from somebody without provable cause is considered stealing even if you are a cop.

Then under what basis are they confiscating the money?

 

[dean owens]

i guess i shouldn't be stunned reading that article or this thread. but i am. guess it used to be a nice country. it was nice when we could say "remember when it was innocent until proven guilty?" yes, the money could have been from drugs. but without proof it doesn't matter. wow.

 

[smeet]

Then under what basis are they confiscating the money?

I believe it's the "we have guns and badges" basis. IMHO of course.

 

[UnsungZeros]

Then under what basis are they confiscating the money?

Special asset forfeiture laws designed to take in drug money. All the cops need is to suspect that the money was connected with a drug deal or somehow illegaly obtained.

Essentially, the government found a loophole to confiscate money that they otherwise wouldn't be able to take in a criminal case by turning it into a civil matter and not a criminal one (where probable cause of a crime would be needed). The government then sues the property (not the person) and the owner becomes a third party claimant. The suit is on the basis that the property was connected with illegal activity and thus subject to forfeiture. The owner then must prove on a preponderance of the evidence that it is not.

So this all amounts to a large abuse of power by the government and a blatant dismissal of due process.

 

[coreyfyfe]

US Constitution, Amendment 4
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.

US Constitution, Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

According to the 4th and 5th Amendments that law is unconstitutional. Please learn your rights before they take them all...

It's perfectly legal, you just aren't reading it right.

Under the fourth amendment they are required to seach a warrant; however, in the case of a traffic stop, an officer is only required to get a warrant if you refuse to let them search the car. Most people don't realize they can say no, so cops don't give you the option they just say get out, we're searching the car. If you do say no, it usually sends them on an ego trip, and they will do everything the can to bend the laws as they see fit, but that's an aside.

Under the fifth amendment, the whole thing is part of your "due process". If there is a suspicion of illegal activity which puts the public as a whole "in danger" your rights are suspended as you are now held under suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, the property ends up being the only thing held, as it falls under the jurisdiction of asset forfeiture rules.

 

[JEberle]

It's perfectly legal, you just aren't reading it right.

Under the fourth amendment they are required to seach a warrant; however, in the case of a traffic stop, an officer is only required to get a warrant if you refuse to let them search the car. Most people don't realize they can say no, so cops don't give you the option they just say get out, we're searching the car. If you do say no, it usually sends them on an ego trip, and they will do everything the can to bend the laws as they see fit, but that's an aside.

Under the fifth amendment, the whole thing is part of your "due process". If there is a suspicion of illegal activity which puts the public as a whole "in danger" your rights are suspended as you are now held under suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, the property ends up being the only thing held, as it falls under the jurisdiction of asset forfeiture rules.

I'm sorry but that is crazy. The cops are stealing, plain and simple. They have not given the suspect due process and are stealing the money based on an assumption. How can anyone see this as legal???? The cops have gotten as bad as the criminals, hell in this case they are the criminals. Who decides what can be taken? Who decides when the reason isn't good enough? Who decides how much money is too much money to carry? We have due process for a reason, creating legal loopholes to get around the Constitution is the main reason that I feel this country if failing. Cops are supposed to protect the citizens. They are not doing it by ignoring people's rights and ruling by force (either of guns or lawyers).

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to
Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

 

[coreyfyfe]

creating legal loopholes to get around the Constitution is the main reason that I feel this country if failing. Cops are supposed to protect the citizens.

Protection of the many outweighs inconvenience of the few. Not saying its right, just saying it's legal.

 

[JEberle]

Protection of the many outweighs inconvenience of the few. Not saying its right, just saying it's legal.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin,

 

[coreyfyfe]

Again, just trying to play devils advocate here, but the lofty thoughts of the elite who played chess with our forefathers aside, Benjamin Franklin didn't have to consider heroin trafficing when maknig those kinds of statements.