civil forfeiture

[lotstodo]

So the cops always say that you should let them search because you have nothing to hide right? Turn that around and say you should give us our due process because you can support your seizure in a court of law right?

In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.

In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.

Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.

 

[Winchester]

I think before any property should be seized under drug forfeiture, it should be proven the items being seized are in fact linked to a drug deal or possession of illegal drugs; not suspected. Just because a guy is carrying a large amount of cash on him does not mean he is involved with a drug deal and for a LEO to just take it because he "suspects" it's involved with drugs are is going to be involved with drugs is just wrong. I see these types of seizures as unconstitutional.

Never give the police permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over for a traffic stop either.

This is exactly what these criminal attorneys want you to believe when in fact it does not happen that way. Read GC's comments again.

I served a lot, and I mean a lot (1,000's) of civil forfeiture orders and law suits when at the S.O. and every case was associated with the possession of drugs or other criminal activities. I use to enjoy reading the orders/suits just to see what was taken and how much drugs were involved. I've never seen one forfeiture case unrelated to drugs.

 

[stradial]

So the cops always say that you should let them search because you have nothing to hide right? Turn that around and say you should give us our due process because you can support your seizure in a court of law right?

In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.

In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.

Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.

We agree, sorta.
I have no problem with any money that was found, in the actual possession of someone, along with drugs in the actual possession of the same person.
Take the money now and let them say, goodbye.
I mostly agree with the rest of your points.

 

[stradial]

I think before any property should be seized under drug forfeiture, it should be proven the items being seized are in fact linked to a drug deal or possession of illegal drugs; not suspected. Just because a guy is carrying a large amount of cash on him does not mean he is involved with a drug deal and for a LEO to just take it because he "suspects" it's involved with drugs are is going to be involved with drugs is just wrong. I see these types of seizures as unconstitutional.

Never give the police permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over for a traffic stop either.

This is exactly what these criminal attorneys want you to believe when in fact it does not happen that way. Read GC's comments again.

I served a lot, and I mean a lot (1,000's) of civil forfeiture orders and law suits when at the S.O. and every case was associated with the possession of drugs or other criminal activities. I use to enjoy reading the orders/suits just to see what was taken and how much drugs were involved. I've never seen one forfeiture case unrelated to drugs.

What about my example?
Could that possibly a case of this law being misused or abused?

 

[lotstodo]

I do not know enough about this particular subject to debate. Interesting topic, and I will read up on this, and maybe talk to a few cops in the area about their perspective.

I would recommend talking to prosecutors who have worked these cases. Cops just process the paperwork and turn it over to the attorneys. From that point on it's out of their hands. Few cops ever know the outcome of the seizure as they can take years to complete.

I understand that not every such case is won, that's why we have a court system as checks and balances. Mistakes are made and the court corrects that, well they are suppose to anyway. I'm only saying to not believe everything you read, these groups are prying on the growing distrust in law enforcement to bring an end to the whole process when they have already lost in court.

You only hear about the 1 in 10,000+ cases where L/E lost in court so they want to stop all of it. This is the biggest weapon in crime fighting and the criminals want it gone. Criminals do not fear jail or prison but they get upset that you took their bling away.

1 in 10,000? It has happened right here in Villa Rica and multiple times in Douglas County. With reverse onus and the very real conflict of interest, it is more temptation than many agencies can resist. In some jurisdictions it amounts to no more than a criminal enterprise. We are not talking about the occasional mistake.

 

[Winchester]

So the cops always say that you should let them search because you have nothing to hide right? Turn that around and say you should give us our due process because you can support your seizure in a court of law right?

In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.

In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.

Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.

You need to stay away from those liberal forums, they have rotten your mind! You have been suckered by the liberal Court of Public Opinion. You never believe financial and political reports in the media, why are you believing this from the same source? How many times have we seen the media totally wrong and a story? A little common sense needs to come into play here every now and then.

 

[Winchester]

I do not know enough about this particular subject to debate. Interesting topic, and I will read up on this, and maybe talk to a few cops in the area about their perspective.

I would recommend talking to prosecutors who have worked these cases. Cops just process the paperwork and turn it over to the attorneys. From that point on it's out of their hands. Few cops ever know the outcome of the seizure as they can take years to complete.

I understand that not every such case is won, that's why we have a court system as checks and balances. Mistakes are made and the court corrects that, well they are suppose to anyway. I'm only saying to not believe everything you read, these groups are prying on the growing distrust in law enforcement to bring an end to the whole process when they have already lost in court.

You only hear about the 1 in 10,000+ cases where L/E lost in court so they want to stop all of it. This is the biggest weapon in crime fighting and the criminals want it gone. Criminals do not fear jail or prison but they get upset that you took their bling away.

1 in 10,000? It has happened right here in Villa Rica and multiple times in Douglas County. With reverse onus and the very real conflict of interest, it is more temptation than many agencies can resist. In some jurisdictions it amounts to no more than a criminal enterprise. We are not talking about the occasional mistake.

Show me the final court decisions and not media hyped articles and I'll believe ya.

 

[Grey Colson]

So the cops always say that you should let them search because you have nothing to hide right? Turn that around and say you should give us our due process because you can support your seizure in a court of law right?

In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.

In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.

Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.

It's not really something I have to look up. Our agency stopped seizing currency in those circumstances where no other pc was present back in the mid 90's. :dunno

 

[J-man]

I'm a law abiding tax paying citizen who respects LE. I've never had a problem with LE even when pulled over for a ticket. I can only assume it's the same for everyone, all things being equal. My first thought is that all LE officers are good, honest, and innocent from wrong doing. But I ask...is it too much to expect the same in return?

 

[mei lan]

Shouldn't there be evidence (besides money) present to make the determination that whatever money is present has been gained from a crime?

I talked with M about this. He has seized money, but only when it was found with drugs/evidence of a crime. A particular case he used for example. On a traffic stop, it became apparent that there were drugs in the vehicle. One, by one, he searched each each person (there were 4), finding drugs in their pockets with money in the same pocket. Not just chump change money. Hundreds of dollars on each person. He counted the cash, in front of the camera of his popo mobile, and it became evidence.

Is that not how this is supposed to work? It sounds very above board to me.

Yes, but in that case, wouldn't there be an arrest of the person in the car? In the cases I'm discussing, civil forfeiture takes place when a police person determines that the cash likely came from something illegal, or was going to something illegal, and he can seize that cash for no other reason, and without making an arrest. Getting it returned is the burden of the citizen whose cash was taken.

 

[mei lan]

I think before any property should be seized under drug forfeiture, it should be proven the items being seized are in fact linked to a drug deal or possession of illegal drugs; not suspected. Just because a guy is carrying a large amount of cash on him does not mean he is involved with a drug deal and for a LEO to just take it because he "suspects" it's involved with drugs are is going to be involved with drugs is just wrong. I see these types of seizures as unconstitutional.

Never give the police permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over for a traffic stop either.

This is exactly what these criminal attorneys want you to believe when in fact it does not happen that way. Read GC's comments again.

I served a lot, and I mean a lot (1,000's) of civil forfeiture orders and law suits when at the S.O. and every case was associated with the possession of drugs or other criminal activities. I use to enjoy reading the orders/suits just to see what was taken and how much drugs were involved. I've never seen one forfeiture case unrelated to drugs.

That's not what we're talking about here. Those instances are well-known and most times, I'm sure, well-founded. What we're talking about here is a traffic stop where a police person says how much cash are you carrying or searches the car and finds cash, and then determines that in his judgment the money was likely to be used for something illegal and seizes it. Since he has no proof of anything illegal, no arrest is made. So the citizen goes on his way, minus the cash the police person confiscated. How on earth is that constitutional?

 

[Grey Colson]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

 

[mei lan]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

Oh, I don't like them, either. Flat tax for me. However, I also have a problem with their seizing property just because THEY say you owe taxes before anything has been adjudicated. They could seize everything you own, sell it, and 10 years down the road you're exonerated, but you cannot get your stuff back. That stinks.

 

[stradial]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

 

[Grey Colson]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

Sorry, but I don't take responsibility for something that I have neither done or witnessed being done. No more than I apologize for slavery or anything else I have not been involved in. :dunno

 

[stradial]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

Sorry, but I don't take responsibility for something that I have neither done or witnessed being done. No more than I apologize for slavery or anything else I have not been involved in. :dunno

And thus the reason cops get a bad name.

 

[Grey Colson]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

Sorry, but I don't take responsibility for something that I have neither done or witnessed being done. No more than I apologize for slavery or anything else I have not been involved in. :dunno

And thus the reason cops get a bad name.

That response does not make sense.

 

[stradial]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

Sorry, but I don't take responsibility for something that I have neither done or witnessed being done. No more than I apologize for slavery or anything else I have not been involved in. :dunno

And thus the reason cops get a bad name.

That response does not make sense.

It makes as much sense as your response to my post.

No one asked you to apologize for anything, much less slavery.
I was making the point that your answer of get mad at the IRS because the IRS steals a crap pot lot of money and not some cops stealing your money to use for their department is no different than me speeding but saying don't give me a ticket, there are people committing worse crimes.

Also, I presume you read my example of someone I personally know who had their truck seized under this law and have chosen not to address it because, a) it doesn't fit your agenda, b) you feel that the person probably had something to do with the illegal activity and deserved it, but do not wish to say that, c) LE never makes a mistake, d) all of the above.

My point is this, one of the things that whizzes the average Joe Blow off, is when there is pretty good evidence that LE is over stepping their bounds and someone who is, or was, a part of LE refuses to acknowledge that it is highly possible that LE has made a mistake.
In other words, that BS of the "brotherhood", the "blue line", which is just another way of saying, we don't admit to doing anything wrong because we belong to the same "club".
Hell, we all belong to one "club" or the other, but I don't ignore or refuse to admit that someone in my "club" did wrong when presented by stories or facts that they did, just because we are brothers.
And I'll tell you something else about my "club", I can promise we have buried more of our brothers and sisters in our "club" than you have in yours.
So life and death as an outcome is not the exclusive domain of your "club".

Just be human and say something like, "if what is reported is true, this is a problem, while I have never personally seen it or know someone who has seen it, but it could happen".

Just like the cops in New Orleans that were one of the biggest murder/robber gangs in the state at one time.
Heck they were doing contract killings, on duty, in uniform and driving patrol cars.

These "bad" cops do not reflect the majority of LE by any means, but they do exist and there are abuses of power and to not acknowledge it is wrong.
I myself have heard you say, I will start looking for things to give them a ticket for if they make me mad.
That is understandable from the human standpoint, but as a professional, it is flat out wrong.

 

[Winchester]

I think before any property should be seized under drug forfeiture, it should be proven the items being seized are in fact linked to a drug deal or possession of illegal drugs; not suspected. Just because a guy is carrying a large amount of cash on him does not mean he is involved with a drug deal and for a LEO to just take it because he "suspects" it's involved with drugs are is going to be involved with drugs is just wrong. I see these types of seizures as unconstitutional.

Never give the police permission to search your vehicle when they pull you over for a traffic stop either.

This is exactly what these criminal attorneys want you to believe when in fact it does not happen that way. Read GC's comments again.

I served a lot, and I mean a lot (1,000's) of civil forfeiture orders and law suits when at the S.O. and every case was associated with the possession of drugs or other criminal activities. I use to enjoy reading the orders/suits just to see what was taken and how much drugs were involved. I've never seen one forfeiture case unrelated to drugs.

That's not what we're talking about here. Those instances are well-known and most times, I'm sure, well-founded. What we're talking about here is a traffic stop where a police person says how much cash are you carrying or searches the car and finds cash, and then determines that in his judgment the money was likely to be used for something illegal and seizes it. Since he has no proof of anything illegal, no arrest is made. So the citizen goes on his way, minus the cash the police person confiscated. How on earth is that constitutional?

Where are you getting this information that it was done in the first place? Where did this happen?

 

[Winchester]

People need to be more upset with the IRS. Whereas the odds are in your favor of not having your money seized by the mean 'ol popo, the scum at the IRS rape us every pay period at the point of a gun.

While I agree with your point about the IRS, but your answer is like those who when caught doing wrong say, "Yeh, but I only did a little wrong, look at those guys, they do a lot wrong.", instead of, "Yep, I was wrong."
Or, why stop me for speeding? That red car was going twice as fast as I was.
(sound familiar?)

Sorry, but I don't take responsibility for something that I have neither done or witnessed being done. No more than I apologize for slavery or anything else I have not been involved in. :dunno

And thus the reason cops get a bad name.

That response does not make sense.

It makes as much sense as your response to my post.

No one asked you to apologize for anything, much less slavery.
I was making the point that your answer of get mad at the IRS because the IRS steals a crap pot lot of money and not some cops stealing your money to use for their department is no different than me speeding but saying don't give me a ticket, there are people committing worse crimes.

Also, I presume you read my example of someone I personally know who had their truck seized under this law and have chosen not to address it because, a) it doesn't fit your agenda, b) you feel that the person probably had something to do with the illegal activity and deserved it, but do not wish to say that, c) LE never makes a mistake, d) all of the above.

My point is this, one of the things that whizzes the average Joe Blow off, is when there is pretty good evidence that LE is over stepping their bounds and someone who is, or was, a part of LE refuses to acknowledge that it is highly possible that LE has made a mistake.
In other words, that BS of the "brotherhood", the "blue line", which is just another way of saying, we don't admit to doing anything wrong because we belong to the same "club".
Hell, we all belong to one "club" or the other, but I don't ignore or refuse to admit that someone in my "club" did wrong when presented by stories or facts that they did, just because we are brothers.
And I'll tell you something else about my "club", I can promise we have buried more of our brothers and sisters in our "club" than you have in yours.
So life and death as an outcome is not the exclusive domain of your "club".

Just be human and say something like, "if what is reported is true, this is a problem, while I have never personally seen it or know someone who has seen it, but it could happen".

Just like the cops in New Orleans that were one of the biggest murder/robber gangs in the state at one time.
Heck they were doing contract killings, on duty, in uniform and driving patrol cars.

These "bad" cops do not reflect the majority of LE by any means, but they do exist and there are abuses of power and to not acknowledge it is wrong.
I myself have heard you say, I will start looking for things to give them a ticket for if they make me mad.
That is understandable from the human standpoint, but as a professional, it is flat out wrong.

Are you on drugs tonight? That is totally way off in left field and uncalled for. You owe GC an apology, big time!

And about your truck driver friend, did you not state that drugs WERE found in his vehicle?

Drugs found, vehicle confiscated, end of report! The rest is totally up to the courts and people who get paid way too much.