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.
Quote Originally Posted by TFOGGER View Post
+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