View Full Version : Another Example of America Becoming Less American
Police states...
rJd4Q4u5cqU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU&feature=player_embedded#at=206)
I have no idea how to post the actual youtube video - can someone school me on this? [ Got ya covered - Ginsue]
Click the "wrap youtube tags" button, then place the info after the = sign on the link between them
rJd4Q4u5cqU&feature=player_embedded#at=206
theGinsue
05-23-2011, 20:37
Do NOT let this thread degrade into a cop bashing thread or it will be closed and probably removed.
Whose to blame for this behavior then? The travelers? Department of Transportation?
I can't watch it on the computer here at work so...my contribution is fluffy puppies.
Rust_shackleford
05-23-2011, 20:58
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows,
Everything that's wonderful is what I feel when we're together,
Brighter than a lucky penny,
When you're near the rain cloud disappears, dear,
And I feel so fine just to know that you are mine.
I would like to know why people are giving up their money to the cops. no way in hell would I let them steal my cash from me. give me a ticket...fine, but stealing my money...that is a whole new ballgame.
Whose to blame for this behavior then? The travelers? Department of Transportation?
Who writes and interprets the laws of asset forfeiture?
It has never made sense to me but here is my best but limited explanation. Property in these cases is treated like a person who has committed a crime. It is seized and charged in court and unless the owner comes and defends their right to possess the property, it is converted into the property of the government that seized it. There are rules for how the government divides the money and how it can be used. The largest portion of the property normally is converted for the use of the agency that seized the property.
Originally the laws were established to combat large scale narcotics trafficking and organized crime. Those laws are used for all kinds of crimes now, depending on how the federal, state, and local legislatures write their asset forfeiture laws.
I understand the original intent behind asset forfeiture, however, the way it is practiced now in many jurisdictions makes my skin crawl. If you are a local sheriff with a tight budget, you don't have to tell your deputies what will happen if they don't make seizures. They know, and they will do what they need to, to keep their jobs and feed their families.
So the choices for many communities seems to be; fewer government services, higher taxes, or asset forfeiture. Our elected officials choose based on what they believe will get them re-elected (otherwise known as what the people want).
Just my $.02
BPTactical
05-23-2011, 21:15
Home Run CStone!
I am in agreement with Irving to a point. I dont think this is worthy of a "Cop Bashing" but it is open game for "Legislation Bashing" session. These "Civil Forfeture" laws are nothing more than government sponsored theft.
Denver for instance-peoples property seized and then even on aquittal or dropping of charges they still have to pay impound fees and storage.
Anymore it does seem that some agencies are being used as revenue generating machines than to "Serve and Protect".
I don't blame the officer on the street, they for the most part are doing as their superiors have directed them to do. I do have a problem with the fact of being pulled over for no other reason than having out of state plates.
"Do you have papers to be traveling in this state, Komrade?" coming soon?
And then to seize personal property when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed is Draconian to say the least.
Dont bitch at the gumshoe on the street.
Raise hell with the folks that write and pass these laws.
The police just do what they're told to do. This is probably a political issue rather than a police abuses issue. I'm not too concerned about those individuals who are smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars in circulated greenbacks across the Mexican border. IIRC, that violates some statute or another under US Customs law, and it is suspicious as hell. My biggest problem is with warrantless, intrusive, full vehicle searches without any justification other than a hunch. In some states police will attempt a vehicle search of anyone they pull over for any reason -- perhaps because it is after 10 PM on the weekend -- and that is for everyone, not just folks with out of state plates. They pull you over because they claim you did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or failed to signal a lane change, and the next thing you know they want to open the suitcase in your trunk without any reason to suspect any crime has been committed. Try and tell them "no" and see what happens. That is why some states will try to throw you in prison for recording police stops. Again, it is the political climate in certain states that encourages and permits police to do this sort of thing. It is not tolerated in most places. I haven't seen it in Colorado. Happens all the time in NY. Some liberal politicians probably want it to happen everywhere.
Colorado Luckydog
05-23-2011, 21:33
Do NOT let this thread degrade into a cop bashing thread or it will be closed and probably removed.
No need to bash the the cops? The story speaks for itself very very clearly.
bobbyfairbanks
05-23-2011, 21:50
Do NOT let this thread degrade into a cop bashing thread or it will be closed and probably removed.
I understand not bashing all cops or better said Peace officers; but these law enforcement officers deserved to be bashed. Just look at what they are doing.
Dont bitch at the gumshoe on the street.
Raise hell with the folks that write and pass these laws.
While I agree a big part of the problem is legislatures overstepping their bounds, the gumshoe on the street is not without complicity in this. They help enable this behavior by enforcing what are unconstitutional seizures of property. Just following orders is not an absolution of guilt.
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.
The police have a duty to uphold our rights rather than to act as a willing agent of a corrupt government. Of course they aren't alone in this crime. The People are the most guilty in this whole thing. They're the ones who tolerate this kind of abuse. They're the complacent sheep who want government to 'protect' them and so allow these abuses to happen. They have the power, by vote or force, to stop this and they chose not to. They deserve everything they get as a result.
I would like to know why people are giving up their money to the cops. no way in hell would I let them steal my cash from me. give me a ticket...fine, but stealing my money...that is a whole new ballgame.
How would you stop them?
Those police officers making up lies to pull people over is a direct result of poorly written laws, is that what I'm to believe? There is a video of a guy NOT leaving his lane of travel. He gets pulled over for leaving his lane of travel. Damn those anti-organized crime seizure laws. Damn them to hell.
KevDen2005
05-23-2011, 22:15
It appears from the video that in this particular task force there was one individual supervisor lying about his stops, which he should be disciplined for, he is part of the problem.
As for the other officers stopping for money, they don't get to keep it. Someone in their chain of command has told them if they want to keep their jobs, get assignments they want, get things they want out of their job, they better get the money
Cstone, for the record, I want you to know that I knew you (or someone) would bring up the point you made, and I do agree with it, but only to a point. These laws are being abused to fund those local agencies. When a specific department reaches the point that they need to shake down citizens and steal their money just to keep their job, it's pretty clear that losing jobs would be the better alternative. My friend Thomas has pointed out a similar situation with certain Colorado Springs departments spending money to hire motorcycle police, whose only real use is shaking down travelers for money during traffic stops. Can't fight much crime from a bike.
Kevin: This isn't anything new. Small towns in the south have been known for doing this for years and years. Didn't some small town in Texas just get into trouble over doing this a few years ago?
Where is OneGuy67 to come in here and remind us that he can't speak for any other state but ours? As far as I know, this isn't very common in our state, which I'm glad for. However, I don't have out of state plates, so maybe I wouldn't know.
In an effort to make this a worth while thread, what is the best way to combat against this kind of thing? Sure, you can rig up a camera in your car for your road trip and sue later, but what about a way to not have your car illegally searched?
SA Friday
05-24-2011, 00:18
Well, not all LE do seizures. All money taken as evidence for my agency when I was a fed went directly back to the owner at the end of the investigation or directly back to the treasury department if shown to derive from something like drug deals or fencing etc. We returned all other types of evidence back to owners or destroyed it depending on the circumstances and legal advise. all evidence including money had documented disposition based off of legal advice. the JA had to approve it and sometimes even the judge depending on the evidence. Nothing went to DRMO to be sold for reclamation.
Every penny of our salary and expenses was supported solely through your tax dollars, and we were paid and supported well.
Besides, everyone drives around with $20k cash in the spare tire in the trunk. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
Were there follow-up investigations into the suspicious activities with these money seizures? If so, where did they lead and what was the resolution of the investigations? Is there any viable intel from the seizures leading to impact to known drug cartels? Was any of the intel from seizures actionable or utilized by secondary police forces, local in other jurisdictions or federally? Just how many actual seizures were fought in court and found to be erroneous? What were the standard amounts for seizure vs 'have a nice day'? Lots of unanswered questions in that amazing piece of journalism.
ldmaster
05-24-2011, 00:24
Ooooh, late 80's (geez)...
Had a layover in Miami, got a rental car and headed north - was going to S. Carolina - had two days off on per diem, it was a convertible.
About 30 min outside of Miami on I95, I get pulled over.
Cop didn't tell me why he pulled me over. At some point he asks if he can search the car. I say no.
Then the "what do you have to hide" speech, etc... Just made me dig in deeper. One thing I had was TIME.
Three hours later, and a dog search, they say I'm free to go. When he asked why I made them search - I was astonished....
MADE them search?
Intimidation and bullying are becoming too common. Hidden behind the "if you have nothing to hide" speeches that nearly all cops use, it makes you out to be a criminal to insist on your constitutional rights.
He parted with the comment, "Oh, you're one of THOSE people..."
It's been going on for some time, it's not new.
Every new law enforcement "tool" that is sworn will NEVER lead to abuses - always leads to abuses.
SA Friday
05-24-2011, 00:40
[ROFL1] Ya, I can tell by all your posts, you would never incite a cop to the point of them wanting to mess around with you. I bet you weren't even close to fitting a drug runners profile in the 80s running up 95 in a convertible rental out of Miami either...[LOL]
mcantar18c
05-24-2011, 00:56
Do NOT let this thread degrade into a cop bashing thread or it will be closed and probably removed.
I'm the first one to write an asshat off for general cop bashing. I have more than a few friends and a soon-to-be stepdad on the force who are all great officers, and through them I know a good number of the Douglass, JeffCo, and Arapahoe county officers who seem to understand and appreciate, and not abuse, their role as well. I agree with the "no general cop bashing" rule of the thread/forum.
That said, the department in question seems to be fully deserving of any and all bashing heading their way.
Whose to blame for this behavior then? The travelers? Department of Transportation?
Who writes and interprets the laws of asset forfeiture?
It has never made sense to me but here is my best but limited explanation. Property in these cases is treated like a person who has committed a crime. It is seized and charged in court and unless the owner comes and defends their right to possess the property, it is converted into the property of the government that seized it. There are rules for how the government divides the money and how it can be used. The largest portion of the property normally is converted for the use of the agency that seized the property.
Originally the laws were established to combat large scale narcotics trafficking and organized crime. Those laws are used for all kinds of crimes now, depending on how the federal, state, and local legislatures write their asset forfeiture laws.
I understand the original intent behind asset forfeiture, however, the way it is practiced now in many jurisdictions makes my skin crawl. If you are a local sheriff with a tight budget, you don't have to tell your deputies what will happen if they don't make seizures. They know, and they will do what they need to, to keep their jobs and feed their families.
So the choices for many communities seems to be; fewer government services, higher taxes, or asset forfeiture. Our elected officials choose based on what they believe will get them re-elected (otherwise known as what the people want).
Just my $.02
The reason for these laws is justified IMO, and the lawmakers hold no blame for the abuse of said laws. Those who do abuse these laws, either by taking advantage of them like the TF supervisor making stop with no legit point of contact, or by the officers and that DA looking the other way and violating the Constitutional rights of citizens with the excuse of "just doing what they're told," are responsible for their own actions.
I understand how scarce jobs are in our economy, and the need to provide for your family, but these officers are making the conscious decision to turn a blind eye to their supervisor and violate these citizens' rights, and NEED to be held responsible for their actions. By turning down offers/requests to serve on this task force, putting in transfers to other departments, quitting, etc. they aren't violating anything... this isn't the military, they have a choice, they're allowed to say "no."
I've heard from a lot of people that the dept. over by University and Belview is very strict with their stops and rarely give warnings because they need the revenue. Regardless of this being true or not, they're making legit stops and not taking advantage of anything/anyone, so I have no problem with this. But taking advantage of legislation for the sake of making money is something that we need to stop somehow, and those who do NEED to be held responsible for their own conscious actions.
Ginsue, I apologize if you see this as cop bashing and if you'd like to swing that ban hammer you're welcome to do so.
KevDen2005
05-24-2011, 01:41
Well I tend not to use lines like "What do you have to hide" and so on. First off I hate them. Next I prefer not to end up being involved in a Supreme Court case because I pushed too much. At the end of the day is that worth a career and so on, especially when there is nothing proving to to be illegal. If they are criminal, they will eventually get caught, if not by me then by somebody. If I have nothing I have nothing.
My PD does not do seizures. There was a case not too long ago where they had a ton of money and several vehicles as evidence and it turned out to be more of a hassle than the PD was willing to go through to keep it rather than destroy it or do whatever they did with it.
Stu/Irv, I understand about those small southern towns that do that, and really it's sad. That crap has to end. And I think that Eagle got in trouble for something similar to this not that long ago...but I'm not sure.
KevDen2005
05-24-2011, 01:46
I'm the first one to write an asshat off for general cop bashing. I have more than a few friends and a soon-to-be stepdad on the force who are all great officers, and through them I know a good number of the Douglass, JeffCo, and Arapahoe county officers who seem to understand and appreciate, and not abuse, their role as well. I agree with the "no general cop bashing" rule of the thread/forum.
That said, the department in question seems to be fully deserving of any and all bashing heading their way.
The reason for these laws is justified IMO, and the lawmakers hold no blame for the abuse of said laws. Those who do abuse these laws, either by taking advantage of them like the TF supervisor making stop with no legit point of contact, or by the officers and that DA looking the other way and violating the Constitutional rights of citizens with the excuse of "just doing what they're told," are responsible for their own actions.
I understand how scarce jobs are in our economy, and the need to provide for your family, but these officers are making the conscious decision to turn a blind eye to their supervisor and violate these citizens' rights, and NEED to be held responsible for their actions. By turning down offers/requests to serve on this task force, putting in transfers to other departments, quitting, etc. they aren't violating anything... this isn't the military, they have a choice, they're allowed to say "no."
I've heard from a lot of people that the dept. over by University and Belview is very strict with their stops and rarely give warnings because they need the revenue. Regardless of this being true or not, they're making legit stops and not taking advantage of anything/anyone, so I have no problem with this. But taking advantage of legislation for the sake of making money is something that we need to stop somehow, and those who do NEED to be held responsible for their own conscious actions.
Ginsue, I apologize if you see this as cop bashing and if you'd like to swing that ban hammer you're welcome to do so.
I totally agree. My point earlier was that if the practice is legal, and the stop is a "good stop" and not made up then I am okay with it. The TF Supervisor was clearly making up stuff....or at least that's what the video showed. If the other officers are following the rules then I there shouldn't be any discipline, they are following orders within scope of the law. The supervisor needs to be punished.
This is also why it is my belief that a person should be told why they are stopped when they get stopped. I rarely ever ask, "Do you know why I stopped you?" I tell them straight out to save conversation and to save argument or have them pretend they did nothing (that is just my technique). I would say I almost always tell them immediately why they were stopped and I say ALMOST always because we are only human and sometimes mess up or the person I am stopping interrupts me immediately before I can even speak.
COAR15 LEOs please take no offense.
but with things like this, there's no need to bash cops. they bash themselves.
no sharply negative yet witty words of mind could do any more damage to that department's reputation than what's already been done.
reminds me of this
UcSSwW4K4AU
police becoming more militarized, doing things like this, trampling rights, a huge us vs. them gap that keeps widening every day....
if it ever does boil over it will be very bad, because there aren't enough swat teams and flash bangs on the continent to pacify the armed American populace.
I have no interest in cop bashing, I have the utmost highest respect for that badge and the stress of the job that comes with it, I feel the same way about soldiers, fire fighters and many other honorable jobs in this country. However, every barrel has bad apples, I think this video is a great example of a bad department and a bad cop. No doubt there are external influences in play here, but that doesn't justify unlawful stops just to try to find something on out of state travelers. I'm sure they had some pretty legitimate stops but I think they have probably had plenty that were not.
One good cop friend of mine once told me about the "silly" laws on the books that only get used when he was looking for a reason to stop someone in the first place. If he suspected a gang member (he was on the gang unit) then he would pull them over for too much tint on their windows or some other violation that he normally wouldn't pull someone over for - but in the end it was a just stop.
Now in the case of a cop pulling me over without any justification and asking to search my vehicle I would absolutely say no. I have nothing to hide but I do have my rights to protect, so let them harass me if they must but I'll have my lawyers there in no time flat (it is my profession after all...). Would I acquiesce? Sure, under the right circumstances - like if I was in a hurry - but that would be few and far between that I'm in THAT much of a hurry.
Tweety Bird
05-24-2011, 09:19
. . .Besides, everyone drives around with $20k cash in the spare tire in the trunk. Nothing suspicious about that at all. . .
$20K in the trunk certainly WOULD be suspicious. The question becomes one of how the LEO found it.
Funny how the man interviewed in the video didn't deny anything. This looks like bad laws and a few bad apples in Tennessee to me.
BPTactical
05-24-2011, 10:06
What ever happened to the "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine? Evidence and chattels seized through unlawful search are inadmissible and therefore shall be returned unless they are contraband.
Would that come into play in these cases?
For the timebeing cash is not contraband, correct?
Rust_shackleford
05-24-2011, 11:13
That defense didn't work in Nuremberg and it will not work here. Right and wrong. My kids know what is right and what is not, these officers have sworn an oath to the Bill of Rights.
The police just do what they're told to do. This is probably a political issue rather than a police abuses issue. I'm not too concerned about those individuals who are smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars in circulated greenbacks across the Mexican border. IIRC, that violates some statute or another under US Customs law, and it is suspicious as hell. My biggest problem is with warrantless, intrusive, full vehicle searches without any justification other than a hunch. In some states police will attempt a vehicle search of anyone they pull over for any reason -- perhaps because it is after 10 PM on the weekend -- and that is for everyone, not just folks with out of state plates. They pull you over because they claim you did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or failed to signal a lane change, and the next thing you know they want to open the suitcase in your trunk without any reason to suspect any crime has been committed. Try and tell them "no" and see what happens. That is why some states will try to throw you in prison for recording police stops. Again, it is the political climate in certain states that encourages and permits police to do this sort of thing. It is not tolerated in most places. I haven't seen it in Colorado. Happens all the time in NY. Some liberal politicians probably want it to happen everywhere.
OneGuy67
05-24-2011, 12:07
Holy Cow Irving! Give me a minute and I'll get to the thread! I do have a life, you know! [Coffee]
Who writes and interprets the laws of asset forfeiture?
There are rules for how the government divides the money and how it can be used. The largest portion of the property normally is converted for the use of the agency that seized the property.
Originally the laws were established to combat large scale narcotics trafficking and organized crime. Those laws are used for all kinds of crimes now, depending on how the federal, state, and local legislatures write their asset forfeiture laws.
CStone is right on these points. The state legislature makes the laws on the asset forfeiture here that directly affects all agencies in Colorado. They changed the laws back in the late nineties and forfeiture is very difficult now, because of it. That is why you don't hear about it too much in Colorado anymore. Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to bring in the Feds on a case by a local agency who wants the Feds to adopt their case due to asset forfeiture. It is a 80/20 split for the local agency when the Feds do so. But, we generally do not agree with their assessment and the Feds do not generally want to get involved in small stuff.
These laws are being abused to fund those local agencies. When a specific department reaches the point that they need to shake down citizens and steal their money just to keep their job, it's pretty clear that losing jobs would be the better alternative. My friend Thomas has pointed out a similar situation with certain Colorado Springs departments spending money to hire motorcycle police, whose only real use is shaking down travelers for money during traffic stops. Can't fight much crime from a bike.
Kevin: This isn't anything new. Small towns in the south have been known for doing this for years and years. Didn't some small town in Texas just get into trouble over doing this a few years ago?
Where is OneGuy67 to come in here and remind us that he can't speak for any other state but ours? As far as I know, this isn't very common in our state, which I'm glad for. However, I don't have out of state plates, so maybe I wouldn't know.
I'm here Stuart!!! And yes, I'm going to say you can get riled up about what happens in another state that doesn't effect you at all, but the reality of it is, east of the Mississippi, you have less professional law enforcement, with lower standards of education, training, age, etc. West, you have higher standards (with a few exceptions, mind you). East, more unions; west, less unions.
I went to training in Louisiana a few years back for a month and their idea of law enforcement scared the crap out of me.
I can't say that Colorado Springs promoted (you wouldn't be hired to be a motor cop; too many people in the agency would want that job) more people to the motors, but they are exclusively used for traffic enforcement, which means tickets, which does mean two things: revenue and traffic safety (that's the thought anyway).
Well I tend not to use lines like "What do you have to hide" and so on. First off I hate them. Next I prefer not to end up being involved in a Supreme Court case because I pushed too much. At the end of the day is that worth a career and so on, especially when there is nothing proving to to be illegal. If they are criminal, they will eventually get caught, if not by me then by somebody. If I have nothing I have nothing.
My PD does not do seizures. There was a case not too long ago where they had a ton of money and several vehicles as evidence and it turned out to be more of a hassle than the PD was willing to go through to keep it rather than destroy it or do whatever they did with it.
Stu/Irv, I understand about those small southern towns that do that, and really it's sad. That crap has to end. And I think that Eagle got in trouble for something similar to this not that long ago...but I'm not sure.
I agree with Kev on this wholeheartedly.
I always told my trainees that every decision they made possibly had the end result of them losing their house, their family and their way of life, so not to make stupid decisions. Knock on wood, in nearly twenty years, I haven't had a case be appealled at any level and I don't hope it starts anytime soon. I haven't been sued and thanks to in car camera's, I haven't had a complaint on me go farther than the complainant and my supervisor reviewing the videotape and trying to see where I did or said what the complainant accused me of.
I think this video is a great example of a bad department and a bad cop. No doubt there are external influences in play here, but that doesn't justify unlawful stops just to try to find something on out of state travelers. I'm sure they had some pretty legitimate stops but I think they have probably had plenty that were not.
One good cop friend of mine once told me about the "silly" laws on the books that only get used when he was looking for a reason to stop someone in the first place. If he suspected a gang member (he was on the gang unit) then he would pull them over for too much tint on their windows or some other violation that he normally wouldn't pull someone over for - but in the end it was a just stop.
Now in the case of a cop pulling me over without any justification and asking to search my vehicle I would absolutely say no. I have nothing to hide but I do have my rights to protect, so let them harass me if they must but I'll have my lawyers there in no time flat (it is my profession after all...). Would I acquiesce? Sure, under the right circumstances - like if I was in a hurry - but that would be few and far between that I'm in THAT much of a hurry.
I agree with Ranger on this post as well. The officer obviously made a bad stop and it needed to be addressed with him. He has an in-car camera; he could be made to turn it on and video the infraction. The new ones actually continually run and when activated begin the recording 30 seconds prior to the activation. Pretty cool. You see a violation, the weaving (which requires more than one weave here in Colorado) and you activate the equipment and viola! The violation is on the recording.
If the officer is on a fishing expedition and asks for consent to search your vehicle, you certainly have a right to say no. He may try to play the verbal judo with you, but barring anything else, he has no right to search without that consent. Just say no. Simple. If he has something else (like the smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle, observations from someone else, etc.), then that will come out at that time. Otherwise, just say no.
What ever happened to the "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine? Evidence and chattels seized through unlawful search are inadmissible and therefore shall be returned unless they are contraband.
Would that come into play in these cases?
For the timebeing cash is not contraband, correct?
If the search is declared to be unlawlful, then Fruit could be attached, depending upon circumstances. An argument of eventual discovery could be made and the evidence could remain in. If it is contraband, you ain't getting it back. Cash? I haven't seen a case like that in a long time, so I don't know the answer to that.
Like Kev, I used to contact the driver at the door, identify myself and my agency and tell them the reason for the stop. Then, I would ask if there was a reason for them doing what they did. e.g. speed, due to being late for an appointment, painful menstruation (yep, had that excuse), or whatever. Depending upon circumstances, the violation, the time/day of the event, I would decide to write a ticket, write a warning or give a verbal warning. Many times, I was looking for more severe issues, like DUI, wanted people, suspended or revoked drivers, or what have you.
Oh sure. Every legitimate, hardworking US citizen carries at least $200k USD wrapped in shrink wrap, tin foil, and bags and hides it in his vehicle.
Does anyone here not do that? [Tooth]
What ever happened to the "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine? Evidence and chattels seized through unlawful search are inadmissible and therefore shall be returned unless they are contraband.
Would that come into play in these cases?
For the timebeing cash is not contraband, correct?
+1
Where is the probable cause? If PC can't be established, why should I have to spend $10k on a lawyer and months to years tied up in court to get my $20k back? It would appear that the only people to benefit from these civil forfeiture laws are the governments and the lawyers. I understand that the intent was to hurt the drug dealers by hitting them in the wallet, but wouldn't that cause be better served by interdicting the trade BEFORE the drugs had made their way to the end users? The only reason I can see for the disproportionate enforcement is that the government can't generate revenue by confiscating drugs. I absolutely agree with the LEOs that have chimed in, in that the problem is the law, but also with how the agency involved is choosing to implement it. I have been known to carry significant amounts of cash from time to time(albeit not the numbers they talk about in the video) for various reasons, and it appalls me that potentially that could be seized for no other reason than "it seems suspicious, and he was carrying a GUN!". Denver is perilously close to this type of zealous, overreaching bullsh!t with both their vehicle seizure and "assault weapons" policies.
Edit: thought I was done ranting, but something else came to mind, and I'm waiting for oil to drain out of a bike. [LOL]
I'm not familiar with case law, so someone help me out: When exactly did a peace officer's statement become prima facie evidence to convict, without corroborating evidence? It seems like the courts have adopted the stance that "if the officer said you did it, then you did it, unless you can prove otherwise". What happened to the presumption of innocence?
/rant
Oh sure. Every legitimate, hardworking US citizen carries at least $200k USD wrapped in shrink wrap, tin foil, and bags and hides it in his vehicle.
Does anyone here not do that? [Tooth]
I guess I better start taking my life savings out of my car now....
Yep got it, all five bucks accounted for! (it was in the cup holder) [ROFL1]
I guess I better start taking my life savings out of my car now....
Yep got it, all five bucks accounted for! (it was in the cup holder) [ROFL1]
LOL, you just one uped me. I think I have a whole $2.35 in parking change.
SA Friday
05-24-2011, 15:04
Well, you have a choice. Tax money pays for the LE, forfeitures pay for the LE which will lead to looking for the money, or no LE.
Some of you are assuming they are just pulling people and then rifling the car. didn't see that in the video. they are asking for and getting consent... I used to do it all the time, and it would shock you just how often druggies give consent to search knowing they have a wad of cash and a bag of dope in their possession. Drug dealers and users don't classify in the 'intelligent' category most of the time.
+1
Where is the probable cause? If PC can't be established, why should I have to spend $10k on a lawyer and months to years tied up in court to get my $20k back? It would appear that the only people to benefit from these civil forfeiture laws are the governments and the lawyers. I understand that the intent was to hurt the drug dealers by hitting them in the wallet, but wouldn't that cause be better served by interdicting the trade BEFORE the drugs had made their way to the end users? The only reason I can see for the disproportionate enforcement is that the government can't generate revenue by confiscating drugs. I absolutely agree with the LEOs that have chimed in, in that the problem is the law, but also with how the agency involved is choosing to implement it. I have been known to carry significant amounts of cash from time to time(albeit not the numbers they talk about in the video) for various reasons, and it appalls me that potentially that could be seized for no other reason than "it seems suspicious, and he was carrying a GUN!". Denver is perilously close to this type of zealous, overreaching bullsh!t with both their vehicle seizure and "assault weapons" policies.
Edit: thought I was done ranting, but something else came to mind, and I'm waiting for oil to drain out of a bike. [LOL]
I'm not familiar with case law, so someone help me out: When exactly did a peace officer's statement become prima facie evidence to convict, without corroborating evidence? It seems like the courts have adopted the stance that "if the officer said you did it, then you did it, unless you can prove otherwise". What happened to the presumption of innocence?
/rant
What I don't get is why people don't complain to the department with allegations that the officer is wrongfully accusing or stopping them, and why are they consenting to a vehicle search without due cause? Every time I get stopped by LEOs and they ask for my consent to a search I always ask if they have a warrant... if the answer is no then I refuse consent- which as some cops have tried to say is "probable cause because I'm hiding something." I'll gladly wait on the side of the road for either a supervisor or my attorney to come. Not all cops are bad, but the bad ones put a label on all of them.
KevDen2005
05-24-2011, 16:15
I guess I better start taking my life savings out of my car now....
Yep got it, all five bucks accounted for! (it was in the cup holder) [ROFL1]
'
You and me both, but I have less, I hit up a Taco Bell on my way home
KevDen2005
05-24-2011, 16:19
Well, you have a choice. Tax money pays for the LE, forfeitures pay for the LE which will lead to looking for the money, or no LE.
Some of you are assuming they are just pulling people and then rifling the car. didn't see that in the video. they are asking for and getting consent... I used to do it all the time, and it would shock you just how often druggies give consent to search knowing they have a wad of cash and a bag of dope in their possession. Drug dealers and users don't classify in the 'intelligent' category most of the time.
I agree, I get consent all the time which is a legitimate search. My problem, especially from the LE side is the making up of PC. If there is legitimate PC and they get consent then I guess the dumbass that is breaking law is out of luck for giving consent.
I am not entirely sure how I feel about he taking of money, which we could assume is drug related, but that is legal in many jurisdictions. If that is acceptable for the time being I am okay with it as long as there was PC for the stop and PC and/or consent for the search.
This is nit picking and only lawyers should be allowed to do such things, but...
Reasonable suspicion is all that is necessary for the stop. Probably cause gets you the arrest. LE may make contact with anyone and if the person does not leave or the cop does not make an effort to stop the person from leaving, the contact is considered legal. Most of this stuff is pretty academic and can play out many different ways considering all of the variables involved as anyone who has ever been LE will tell you. Articulation is the key and it is why many officers use standard verbiage in reports because it is tested and proven within their jurisdiction.
Consent makes almost any search legal.
If the cops can use video and audio recorders then everyone should be allowed to use recorders. Just be prepared to provide proof that the recording hasn't been altered.
On another note: I'm not qualified to be a chef, but I know good food when I eat it. Some people are not qualified to be LE, but they know when their rights are violated when it happens. [Coffee]
SAFriday: In the story about the Texas town doing this, apparently, several of the people stopped and shaken down for money were on their way to buy a car, for less than $10,000. I realize that they could have just said that, but I know of many, many people, first hand, that drive to other states with cash to get good deals on cars.
Seizure laws are stupid.
stevelkinevil
05-24-2011, 19:47
SAFriday: In the story about the Texas town doing this, apparently, several of the people stopped and shaken down for money were on their way to buy a car, for less than $10,000. I realize that they could have just said that, but I know of many, many people, first hand, that drive to other states with cash to get good deals on cars.
Seizure laws are stupid.
not to mention the small matter of a gross violation of your constitutional rights. It is frankly none of the govt.s business how much money I have on my person or why unless they have good reason (ie. plain view, certain smells, evidence or being under the influence of narcotic, ect.) to believe that the money is a product of drugs, and I damn sure shouldnt have to hire an attorney that I likely cannot afford (and they are well aware of this) to retrieve my personal property from the govt. I am a former LEO myself and happen to know reasonable suspicion is often "obtained" after the fact and can be garnered from almost any situation.
Can't carry more than $10,000 through an airport, but I suspect if you carry much more than $1,000, you'll get an interview inside a little room. I'm going to go read a book so I don't have a stroke due to thinking about crooked cops and the TSA at the same time.
Oh yea, the other thing about that small Texas town, was that the police would pull people over with kids, and tell the people that they could forfeit their money and be let go, or they could face losing their kids and going to jail. I can already feel the left side of my face going numb.
Irving, don't stroke out! You are too valuable to us here :).
I've carried $10K through an airport with no problem. Of course I was leaving Vegas and I'm sure that's pretty normal (is it - maybe leaving it's normal to be BROKE and getting there it's normal to have cash....) but I've done it nonetheless.
You know, IF I gave permission to search my car it would because I have nothing to hide and IF I had $20K in my car for whatever legitimate reason then I would be pretty pissed that it's assumed that I'm up to no good with the money and the money is seized. That is 100% guilty until proven innocent and is a place where police might enforce "probable cause" to keep things legal, but that's a damn big leap.
The upside is that this is a really good investment. Where else can you turn $20K into $200K by simply driving across the state line?
I'm sure this will end now that this is all in the open, but the fact that it happened is pretty disturbing. I come from a small town in the south where cops ask for you to pay the parking ticket up front (uh huh), so I know there are some bad seeds out there - wonder what they are doing...?
ronaldrwl
05-25-2011, 07:45
I'm sure this will end now that this is all in the open, but the fact that it happened is pretty disturbing.
Or, other towns will see this report and decide get in on the free money train. And start stealing from their citizens.
Or, other towns will see this report and decide get in on the free money train. And start stealing from their citizens.
I think it already happened, I had to register two cars yesterday and boy do those fees keep climbing!
I think it already happened, I had to register two cars yesterday and boy do those fees keep climbing!
I hear you there... I wanted to get Afghanistan Veteran plates for my car when I was up for renewal to replace my US Army plates- they said it'd cost $50... I distinctly remember paying $25 for my current plates, specialty plates are getting more expensive. Guess that '08 economic issue is still sticking it to us.
Glock Shooter
05-25-2011, 17:05
now that was a long thread.
Only thing I can add is Kevin and Oneguy, I commend you on your service. I hope that when/if I'm ever pulled over, it's by a member of your profession with as much professionalism as you both demonstrate in your writing.
Well, you have a choice. Tax money pays for the LE, forfeitures pay for the LE which will lead to looking for the money, or no LE.
Some of you are assuming they are just pulling people and then rifling the car. didn't see that in the video. they are asking for and getting consent... I used to do it all the time, and it would shock you just how often druggies give consent to search knowing they have a wad of cash and a bag of dope in their possession. Drug dealers and users don't classify in the 'intelligent' category most of the time.
At least taxation is relatively honest and uniform.
I don't have to like taxes, but as a rule, WE impose them on ourselves. This comes across as a greedy cash grab, and the fact that the officer on the video is unrepentant about not only perjuring himself (fabricating a reason to pull over a car with out of state plates), but also basically stating that the cash that the agency seizes is the major motivator, is repugnant in the extreme.
SA Friday
05-25-2011, 19:25
At least taxation is relatively honest and uniform.
I don't have to like taxes, but as a rule, WE impose them on ourselves. This comes across as a greedy cash grab, and the fact that the officer on the video is unrepentant about not only perjuring himself (fabricating a reason to pull over a car with out of state plates), but also basically stating that the cash that the agency seizes is the major motivator, is repugnant in the extreme.
I agree there needs to be legitimate probable cause to stop in the first place. The cases supporting this are Whren v US, and for this state is CO v Bannister. I don't condone the cops just making stuff up to pull people over, then again, my previous posts never addressed is part of the topic.
KevDen2005
05-26-2011, 03:46
now that was a long thread.
Only thing I can add is Kevin and Oneguy, I commend you on your service. I hope that when/if I'm ever pulled over, it's by a member of your profession with as much professionalism as you both demonstrate in your writing.
Thank you, much appreciated.
Every time I make a traffic stop....and let's be honest I hate making traffic stops so it's not that often...seriously though, every time I do, I am always curious if it could be someone on this forum and then they would have to say, "That cop was fricken awesome."
Thank you, much appreciated.
Every time I make a traffic stop....and let's be honest I hate making traffic stops so it's not that often...seriously though, every time I do, I am always curious if it could be someone on this forum and then they would have to say, "That cop was fricken awesome."
Please become high ranking in Morrison- I hate those guys, every time they stop me it's ticket and sometimes sounds fishy... like Nov when I got stopped on 285-S the cop said he clocked me at 57 in a 40, but I know I wasn't going 1mph over 50. My fault for not asking to see his radar, but on top of that gave me a ticket and then saw my US Army plates and tried to be my friend about it after getting on me about my "speed." I can't hate him for being friendly on the mutual veteran point, but the ticket and then attempt to be nice was just rubbing salt in the wound.
There are good and bad in every line of work- and the great part is the cops that are good usually are really good, and very courteous and fair. My friends in Jeffco know my car and sometimes pull me over just to say "Hey buddy, slow it up a bit, don't want one of my colleagues to give you a ticket!"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.