Suspicion is good enough for drug warriors

[azurefly]

liliysdad, I agree that all LEOs are not bad.

The following statements are not semantically equivalent:

"All LEOs are not bad."

"Not all LEOs are bad."

The first statement says that you cannot find a single bad LEO because ALL of them are NOT bad.

The second statement says that there are at least some (an unknown proportion) who are not bad.

I see this error made constantly. It's really elementary stuff, folks. But it appears in political speeches, public statements, advertisements... :barf:


-azurefly

 

[azurefly]

‘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.

The whole use of dogs for searches is a problem. The whole use of "traces" of this or that, whether found by a dog or found by a machine, is also a problem. Who can possibly prove that traces that are found on someone's luggage were put there by activities of that person who currently possesses the luggage and its current contents?!

And how can anyone say for sure, since the dog cannot be cross-examined, that the dog alerted on the luggage not for drugs, but for the scent of the treats that have been given to the dog since its training to sniff for drugs began?! What if the woman carried Scooby Snacks in the suitcase at some point?!


I really have to ask this: Just how far can a citizen expect their life to be ***k** up by abusive police-state tactics before he/she snaps and starts exacting a vengeance that has nothing to do with courts? Yes, I'm talking a Henry-Bowman, here. Just IMAGINE if it was YOU in this woman's case, losing your life savings, being told that there's no way you could have that much money except by illegal activity, and being told that the authorities will not give your property back to you! The people should just say, "Oh well, that's the way it goes"?? I don't think so!


-azurefly

 

[badbob]

Thank you for correcting my grammer. My publik skool edukashun, I guess.

badbob

 

[Al Norris]

From Judge Lays opening remarks:

Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money. There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution. At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity – activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.”).

Lay then goes on to actually cite the same cases the majority cited, but also the actual meat of those cases, which the majority failed to do:

The law of our circuit makes clear that the possession of a large amount of cash provides strong evidence of a connection between the res and illegal drug activity. Yet this fact is not dispositive. A faithful reading of the cases cited by the majority from our court reveal that we have required some additional nexus between the property seized and drug activity to support forfeiture. In United States v. U.S. Currency, in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200 (8th Cir. 1992), we recognized such a nexus where the investigating officer immediately smelled marijuana upon inspecting the currency.2 Id. at 1203, 1206. In United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2004), we concluded forfeiture was proper where the owner of the seized currency “undisputedly possessed illegal drugs at the time” the currency was discovered. Id. at 502. Most recently, in United States v. $117,920.00 in United States Currency, 413 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005), we determined that forfeiture was warranted where materials known to be used to package and conceal drugs were recovered in close physical proximity to the seized currency, and where the investigating officer detected the smell of marijuana on some of these materials. Id. at 829.

I've read the entire opinion. I agree with the dissent by Lay. But then I'm prejudiced against laws that punish someone without a criminal conviction being first obtained. People who protend to abide by the rule of law, should also be so inclined.