Another Example of America Becoming Less American

[mcantar18c]

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]

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]

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.

[Elhuero]

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




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.

[Ranger]

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]

. . .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]

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]

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]

Holy Cow Irving! Give me a minute and I'll get to the thread! I do have a life, you know!

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.

[Gritty]

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?