Suspicion is good enough for drug warriors
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
This almost happened to us. Actually, depositing anything over $2,999 and out comes the paperwork.
We were in Benbrook Tx. on our way to look at a truck in the want ads. We had withdrawn $5,000 from the bank 2 days before in anticipation. The bank was only able to give us $50.00 bills.??? I found out that day that carrying $5,000 in $50.00 bills in your front pants pockets can be very uncomfortable.
We stopped at a local bank whose name begins with a T.... and ends in bank, to change them in for 100's. I go inside, idle up to the dour, blue haired lady at the counter and speak my request. She asks if I have an account, no is my reply, she then proceeds to fill half my request and explains that without an account, that is all she can do.
I was there maybe 5 minutes. Before I could make it back to the truck, a patrol car comes up, the officer exits and says he would like to speak with me???
He asks if I were just in the bank changing over $5,000 in 50's?
Yes I was.
Why was I carrying such a large amount of cash around he asks?
I explain.
Why was he asking me these questions I ask.
He explained that the teller thought the transaction was "UNUSUAL"!?
So, to all who read here,if you do not look like you should have that kind of money, you become a target for anyone who knows you have it, LE included.
In hindsight and older now, instead of answering his question, I would have asked him how much cash he had in his pocket, 40 or 50 dollars?
Well guess what, to some people in the US that might seem like an"UNUSUAL" amount.
We were in Benbrook Tx. on our way to look at a truck in the want ads. We had withdrawn $5,000 from the bank 2 days before in anticipation. The bank was only able to give us $50.00 bills.??? I found out that day that carrying $5,000 in $50.00 bills in your front pants pockets can be very uncomfortable.
We stopped at a local bank whose name begins with a T.... and ends in bank, to change them in for 100's. I go inside, idle up to the dour, blue haired lady at the counter and speak my request. She asks if I have an account, no is my reply, she then proceeds to fill half my request and explains that without an account, that is all she can do.
I was there maybe 5 minutes. Before I could make it back to the truck, a patrol car comes up, the officer exits and says he would like to speak with me???
He asks if I were just in the bank changing over $5,000 in 50's?
Yes I was.
Why was I carrying such a large amount of cash around he asks?
I explain.
Why was he asking me these questions I ask.
He explained that the teller thought the transaction was "UNUSUAL"!?
So, to all who read here,if you do not look like you should have that kind of money, you become a target for anyone who knows you have it, LE included.
In hindsight and older now, instead of answering his question, I would have asked him how much cash he had in his pocket, 40 or 50 dollars?
Well guess what, to some people in the US that might seem like an"UNUSUAL" amount.
Ben Swenson
New member
Yet another law that is working perfectly.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
Cash banking transactions over $10k, I believe, are reported by the financial institution to the I.R.S. The customer doesn't have to fill out any forms.
I don't believe the post that it's against the law in Texas to carry over $500k in cash. I'd like to see the law.
I agree with Rich. I don't think that the cash in the subject case should have been confiscated...maybe reported to the I.R.S., but not confiscated.
Old friend of mine recently sold his farm for a little over $1M. He later was drunk and took $100k in cash to show to another friend, just for grins and giggles. I don't believe a law was broken! (well, except for the probable d.u.i.)
I don't believe the post that it's against the law in Texas to carry over $500k in cash. I'd like to see the law.
I agree with Rich. I don't think that the cash in the subject case should have been confiscated...maybe reported to the I.R.S., but not confiscated.
Old friend of mine recently sold his farm for a little over $1M. He later was drunk and took $100k in cash to show to another friend, just for grins and giggles. I don't believe a law was broken! (well, except for the probable d.u.i.)
Sir, I understand you angst, but please, do not do this.
We are not all this way. Yes, it is often alarming the depths to which the government will go in the war on drugs, but this brush should nopt be used to paint all officers.
There are some, hopefully a lot, of us out here truly trying to do the right thing in the midst of crap like this. Plese, I beg you, teach your daughter to look through a skeptical eye, and teach her to use common sense, but teach her that there are those who truly do want to help, and are busting their balls day in and day out to do so.
liliysdad, I agree that all LEOs are not bad. They have families also. Their kids have to grow up in the cesspool that a few create. Education is key, please go to this website. Officers educating fellow officers about the Constitution and what the laws really are.
http://www.patriotamerica.com/JackMcLamb/Index.htm
Thank you for standing by your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
badbob
http://www.patriotamerica.com/JackMcLamb/Index.htm
Thank you for standing by your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
badbob
DonR101395
New member
No, you're required to declare the money anytime you have $10,000 or more. We do it a fair amount and then you get put on a watch list and almost everytime you come through customs they pull you to the side and check you stuff whether you declare anything or not and I've had a few guys get pulled in for interviews about why they are carrying a large amounts of money on a regular basis, it's inconvienient but not criminal.
The problem is that those few bad cops and district attorneys give the guys in the law enforcment community a bloody nose. Every time I see a new law proposed my second thought after thinking this would be a good tool for law enforcment is how it can be misused by law enforcment. That makes me reluctant to see new laws that can be abused by law enforcment passed.
The overwhelming majority of law enforcment personnel (99%+) are putting it on the line everday and are doing the job the way its meant to be. But when I see the very very few abuse something it makes me reluctant to see more powers given to law enforcment.
The overwhelming majority of law enforcment personnel (99%+) are putting it on the line everday and are doing the job the way its meant to be. But when I see the very very few abuse something it makes me reluctant to see more powers given to law enforcment.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
"Of course he must have gotten that money from drugs - no spic can rightfully earn that much money, and even if he did, he should keep it in the bank like white people do."
That's what I'm getting from the 8th Circuit, if you read between the lines. It's so ridiculously wrong. Forfeiture laws are wrong period. FINES and restitution, YES, if and only if you are convicted, and in any amount the government damn well chooses to set the fine at. But short of a conviction, it's wrong!
That's what I'm getting from the 8th Circuit, if you read between the lines. It's so ridiculously wrong. Forfeiture laws are wrong period. FINES and restitution, YES, if and only if you are convicted, and in any amount the government damn well chooses to set the fine at. But short of a conviction, it's wrong!
Rich, come on - this whole episode stinks to high heaven.
#1. The subject lied several times about simple questions posed to him.
I'm sure other questions were posed to find let's say - where the truck was and who owned it - that he went to purchase. If he was in fear or concerned about illegality of carrying large sums of cash, How bout going to get a certified check or money order for his transaction for the vehicle he was supposed to purchase.
I guess if i was going across country to by something i might call ahead and see if it had been sold - or held until my arrival with all my currency.
No bank account - don't trust the goverment....
As far as other charges pending - or charges you might think a relevant - those can be filed at a later date.
I know that the Iowa State Patrol has made several large cash seizures on I-80 and everyone of the folks operating those vehicles had NO IDEA who's cash it was or how it got there = go figure.
There's to many "what ifs here for me or as the law requires what a "reasonable person might believe". The appeals court decision backs that notion up.
Your milage may vary.
12-34hom.
#1. The subject lied several times about simple questions posed to him.
I'm sure other questions were posed to find let's say - where the truck was and who owned it - that he went to purchase. If he was in fear or concerned about illegality of carrying large sums of cash, How bout going to get a certified check or money order for his transaction for the vehicle he was supposed to purchase.
I guess if i was going across country to by something i might call ahead and see if it had been sold - or held until my arrival with all my currency.
No bank account - don't trust the goverment....
As far as other charges pending - or charges you might think a relevant - those can be filed at a later date.
I know that the Iowa State Patrol has made several large cash seizures on I-80 and everyone of the folks operating those vehicles had NO IDEA who's cash it was or how it got there = go figure.
There's to many "what ifs here for me or as the law requires what a "reasonable person might believe". The appeals court decision backs that notion up.
Your milage may vary.
12-34hom.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
he'p Rich out a little if I may.
Then charge him with "having circumstances stinking to high heaven", if that is a valid crime in the state, and pass a law that says that the fine for conviction of stinking to high heaven is $125K.
Then charge him with obstruction of justice, and you guessed it, make the fine $125K.
This ought not confuse you, IMO. I don't trust the government either, and it's the government that makes banks report transactions over 10K. And I'm quite sure if the feds told a bank to "sieze account X" in this WOSD and "WOT", the bank would gleefully comply. So therefore I don't trust banks either.
No you charge someone with the crime for which you have evidence. If you don't have it, you leave them alone.
That's entirely different. This guy said it WAS his, and was going to buy a truck for commercial purposes. Apples & oranges.
I'm a reasonable person. One who happens to know that Hispanic folks typically deal in cash, which near as I can tell, is perfectly legal, instead of via bank accounts. And one who can reason that since it wasn't, ya know, HIS car, but a rental, that's it's quite possible that the drug residue wasn't his. And that it's quite reasonable to assume that he does prefer having money over not having money, and so that he had intended to invest in a truck that would, ya know, MAKE HIM money - legally. If he's *probably guilty* of a crime, then charge him with a crime and get a dadgummed conviction from a jury. Those juries are reasonable people, correct? So they'd surely convict him. After which take everything the man's got, including the $125 K.
Then charge him with "having circumstances stinking to high heaven", if that is a valid crime in the state, and pass a law that says that the fine for conviction of stinking to high heaven is $125K.
Then charge him with obstruction of justice, and you guessed it, make the fine $125K.
This ought not confuse you, IMO. I don't trust the government either, and it's the government that makes banks report transactions over 10K. And I'm quite sure if the feds told a bank to "sieze account X" in this WOSD and "WOT", the bank would gleefully comply. So therefore I don't trust banks either.
No you charge someone with the crime for which you have evidence. If you don't have it, you leave them alone.
That's entirely different. This guy said it WAS his, and was going to buy a truck for commercial purposes. Apples & oranges.
I'm a reasonable person. One who happens to know that Hispanic folks typically deal in cash, which near as I can tell, is perfectly legal, instead of via bank accounts. And one who can reason that since it wasn't, ya know, HIS car, but a rental, that's it's quite possible that the drug residue wasn't his. And that it's quite reasonable to assume that he does prefer having money over not having money, and so that he had intended to invest in a truck that would, ya know, MAKE HIM money - legally. If he's *probably guilty* of a crime, then charge him with a crime and get a dadgummed conviction from a jury. Those juries are reasonable people, correct? So they'd surely convict him. After which take everything the man's got, including the $125 K.
You can read the 10 page opinion here.
Judge Colloton (writing for himself and Judge Arnold):
Lay makes the case that no case was made!
12-34hom, before you set your mind in stone, perhaps you should read the opinion... A mere 10pg PDF.
Judge Colloton (writing for himself and Judge Arnold):
Judge Lay, in his dissent, outlines the same cases mentioned by the majority, but goes further and cites the specifics of which the majority only generalized.
Lay makes the case that no case was made!
12-34hom, before you set your mind in stone, perhaps you should read the opinion... A mere 10pg PDF.
Older article, but still apt.... This is why seizure is so popular among some folks.
The Looting of America
‘A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we’re confiscating your life savings and you’ll never get it back.’ Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston’s Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely document-ed where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.
Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans – now numbering in the hundreds of thousands – who have been
victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime.
Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back.
Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples:
In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs.
Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son.
The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize prop-erty and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest.
The Looting of America
‘A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we’re confiscating your life savings and you’ll never get it back.’ Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston’s Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely document-ed where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.
Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans – now numbering in the hundreds of thousands – who have been
victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, every-thing you own can be legally taken away even if you are never convicted of a crime.
Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back.
Property is now being seized in every state and from every social group. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public-housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples:
In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it ‘robbery with a badge’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car – specially equipped for her handicapped daughter – seized as the ‘getaway vehicle’." [USA Today, 5/18/92]
Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
In Monmouth, New Jersey, Dr. David Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother’s house. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn’t stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother’s home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs.
Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors’ porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son.
The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize prop-erty and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest.
Cont'd.
How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today.
Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property.
To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply. Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account.
In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible.
Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property.
Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest:
Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer. He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping.
Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette.
Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property.
Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property
In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.
Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant."
http://www.escapeartist.com/efam19/Looting_America.html
How extensive are seizures in America today? The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today.
Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your ‘‘guilty’’ property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property’s "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property.
To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees – ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 – out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn’t apply. Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees – with no guarantee of winning – while the government keeps your car, home and bank account.
In fact, in a recent Supreme Court decision (Bennis v. Michigan), the Court said explicitly that innocent owners can be deprived of their property if it's used to facilitate a crime, even without the owner's knowledge or consent. That means you can now lose your home or business because of the action of employees, relatives, or guests, over whom you have absolutely no control.
Police and prosecutors have incentive to confiscate as much as possible.
Not only do police and prosecutors have the power to seize anything you own on the slightest pretext, they also have the incentive. The dirty little secret of the forfeiture racket is that police, prosecutors and judges can benefit personally by stealing your property.
Brenda Grantland – America’s leading asset forfeiture defense attorney – gives these examples of government greed in her book Your House Is Under Arrest:
Suffolk County, NY. District Attorney James M. Catterton drives around in a BMW 735I that was seized from an alleged drug dealer. He spent $3,412 from the forfeiture fund for mechanical and body work, including $75 for pin-striping.
Warren County, NJ. The assistant chief prosecutor drives a confiscated yellow Corvette.
Little Compton, RI. The seven member police force received $3.8 million from the federal forfeiture fund, and spent it on such things as a new 23-foot boat with trailer, and new Pontiac Firebirds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The head of one Los Angeles police forfeiture squad claims his group personally pocketed over $60 million in seized property.
Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
Some police will kill you for your property
In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national parkland. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.
Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant."
http://www.escapeartist.com/efam19/Looting_America.html
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Jesus H. Christ.
"Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today."
That statistic is especially chilling...That seems grounds for revolution right there.
Any LEO's here wanna comment? I'd love some inside perspective...
"Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991 to over $2 billion today."
That statistic is especially chilling...That seems grounds for revolution right there.
Any LEO's here wanna comment? I'd love some inside perspective...
Scott Conklin
New member
The scarriest thing to me regarding those figures and AF in general is that I still regularly encounter people who either deny it is true or claim it is OK, since "if they hadn't been doing something wrong they'd have never been under suspicion". There seems to be a lot(way too many) of people with one of those mindsets out there still.
invention_45
New member
Their mindsets will change when it happens to them. And it will.
Anti - from the appellate courts ruling:
The route and circumstances of Gonzalez's travel were highly suspicious. Gonzalez had flown on a one way ticket, which we have previously acknowledged is evidence in favor of forfeiture [ see U.S. vs.U.S. currency in the amount of 156,000 980 F.2d 1200, 1206] {8th Cir. 1992} and he gave a explanation, attributed to advice from an unidentified third person, about why he elected to return by car. Gonzalez purportedly carried 125,00 in cash with him on his flight, for the porpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not remember.
This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct.
Then after questioning by officers, he lied about having money in his car and the names of his friends, thus giving further reason to question the legitimacy of the currency's presence.
Totality of circumstances = large amounts of concealed currency, strange travel patterns, the inability to identify a key part in the purported innocent transaction, the unusual rental car papers, the canine alert, false statements to officers.
I'm convinced.
12-34hom.
The route and circumstances of Gonzalez's travel were highly suspicious. Gonzalez had flown on a one way ticket, which we have previously acknowledged is evidence in favor of forfeiture [ see U.S. vs.U.S. currency in the amount of 156,000 980 F.2d 1200, 1206] {8th Cir. 1992} and he gave a explanation, attributed to advice from an unidentified third person, about why he elected to return by car. Gonzalez purportedly carried 125,00 in cash with him on his flight, for the porpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not remember.
This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct.
Then after questioning by officers, he lied about having money in his car and the names of his friends, thus giving further reason to question the legitimacy of the currency's presence.
Totality of circumstances = large amounts of concealed currency, strange travel patterns, the inability to identify a key part in the purported innocent transaction, the unusual rental car papers, the canine alert, false statements to officers.
I'm convinced.
12-34hom.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
IZ-
You're correct in every aspect of the detainment and suspicion, IMHO.
What you miss is this:
Gonzolez was convicted of no crime.
Worse yet, he wasn't even charged with a crime.
According to the law, the only crime that was "committed" was committed by the money, under a Guilty Until Proven Innocent statute. Gonzolez wasn't even a "party" of interest, though the property was quite possibly his; earned by his labor and sweat. If so, he is now ruined; a cop hater; someone who distrusts his government; someone who believes that the drug dealers on the corner had the right idea from jump.
It's called "Civil Asset Forfeiture". It's a VERY dangerous set of statutes and these are its ramifications.
As the saying goes, "There, but by the Grace of God, go I".
Rich
You're correct in every aspect of the detainment and suspicion, IMHO.
What you miss is this:
Gonzolez was convicted of no crime.
Worse yet, he wasn't even charged with a crime.
According to the law, the only crime that was "committed" was committed by the money, under a Guilty Until Proven Innocent statute. Gonzolez wasn't even a "party" of interest, though the property was quite possibly his; earned by his labor and sweat. If so, he is now ruined; a cop hater; someone who distrusts his government; someone who believes that the drug dealers on the corner had the right idea from jump.
It's called "Civil Asset Forfeiture". It's a VERY dangerous set of statutes and these are its ramifications.
As the saying goes, "There, but by the Grace of God, go I".
Rich