They did have to consider these things (opium) and many more, and I feel they did a much better job than we have since. Officially I'll agree to disagree, but if you want to continue by PM I'd be more than happy to...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Carry too much $ the police will take it!!!!
- Thread starter JonathanD
- Start date
They did have to consider these things (opium) and many more, and I feel they did a much better job than we have since. Officially I'll agree to disagree, but if you want to continue by PM I'd be more than happy to...
It's a wonderful state of affairs that money can be seized without probable cause. Even better is that it becomes a civil matter in court and there is no presumption of innocence. Instead of the state trying to prove you're guilty, you have to prove and convince the court that the money was not obtained illegally. Then, MAYBE, if you're lucky, you'll get your money back.
Exactly. It is a brave new world.....
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
Wow. What a clever superburn. Hotter than an Australian brushfire! You sir, have won the Internet.
I wonder why some of the people who have had money confiscated haven't tried to reclaim it? Anyone?
Okay, being serious just for a minute...
People need to realise that one's stance on this discussion, like lots of other things, is a matter of opinion.
It boils down to this - do you give police the legal right to confiscate money if they have reason to believe it's been ill gotten from drug dealing or the like, accepting that in some cases this may be open to abuse (so some checks and balances need to be worked in, to make that as difficult as possible)? In doing so, you're likely to hit some dealers where it hurts - in the wallet - and you think the positive impact of this outweighs the risks inherent in the system.
Or, do you NOT grant this right, because YOUR OPINION is that the possibility of abuse or the legal precedent being set outweighs any possible benefit of financial penalty to the dealers? In doing so, you accept that in some cases, money from drug dealing will stay in the dealers' pockets, but the reason you accept that is because the first principle is more important to you.
Neither of these views is 100% right and the other wrong. Like I said, it's a question of opinion.
This thread made me happy
You guys are a hoot!
glad we could be of service.
Oh by the way - where did you get the 200£ in your back pocket?
Actually, I think this is one of the smarter laws around. The cops don't have to watch bangers with drug money rolling on the street and do nothing.
I'd be pissed if some PD would hold my hard-earned 26 k's until I can prove they're legally mine, but maybe if you are about to carry 26 k's in your car, you can always print a paper or two proving the origin to go with it.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
Nope.
He can take it from you.
The RICO laws are such that all he has to do is suspect it was illegally gained and he can seize it. Now you have to sue and prove the money didn't come from illegal sources to get it back.
The police don't have to arrest you, charge you with anything, or show any illegal basis for the money. They just seize it on "suspicion" and it's up to you to prove, in court, that they should return your money.
... and it happens for amounts less $1000.
With Federal & State funding being cut this crap going to become more common.
Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars
Suit says cops force motorists, largely black, to forfeit cash and cars—or be charged with trumped-up crimes
By Howard Witt | Tribune correspondent
March 10, 2009
TENAHA, Texas— You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border if you're African-American, but you might not be able to drive out of it—at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.
That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: voluntarily sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.
More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with any crime.
Officials in Tenaha, situated along a heavily traveled highway connecting Houston with popular gambling destinations in Louisiana, say they are engaged in a battle against drug trafficking and call the search-and-seizure practice a legitimate use of the state's asset-forfeiture law. That law permits local police agencies to keep drug money and other property used in the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets.
more...
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]...
And it's not just Texas!
Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars
Suit says cops force motorists, largely black, to forfeit cash and cars—or be charged with trumped-up crimes
By Howard Witt | Tribune correspondent
March 10, 2009
TENAHA, Texas— You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border if you're African-American, but you might not be able to drive out of it—at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.
That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: voluntarily sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.
More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with any crime.
Officials in Tenaha, situated along a heavily traveled highway connecting Houston with popular gambling destinations in Louisiana, say they are engaged in a battle against drug trafficking and call the search-and-seizure practice a legitimate use of the state's asset-forfeiture law. That law permits local police agencies to keep drug money and other property used in the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets.
more...
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]...
And it's not just Texas!
If I've learned one thing about global economics in the last 6 months, it's that there's nothing respectable about banking.
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.
You're from the UK... pretty famous guy from there made a statement about this subject.
Guy by the name of William Blackstone. Commenting about the presumption of innocence with regards to Common Law (you know, the basis of the English and USAian legal systems)...
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
Yeah. That was his opinion.
"Bad cases make bad law" was someone else's.
See what I mean?
Actually - per the foundational documents of the United States, the writing of the Founders, and English Common Law - the former is 100% wrong and the latter is 100% right. All three strongly speak to the "principle" being more important than the results.
