Another Example of America Becoming Less American

[TFOGGER]

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.

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

[SA Friday]

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.

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

[KevDen2005]

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.

[cstone]

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.

[Irving]

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]

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.

[Irving]

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.

[TFOGGER]

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]

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.