- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 4,437
- Reaction score
- 2,284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man.
Guy has 96 000 dollars, is pulled over for following to closeNearly a 16 minute video.
Do you have more for us than this: "Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."
If forfeiture has to happen, the the government should be required to give back the stuff in 15-20 days or less unless a judge OKs it.
In probably 95% (or likely more) of cases, it doesn't need to happen.
I suspect in almost all cases, its a 4th amendment violation or if not, we need new judges.
Well that is more helpful.Guy has 96 000 dollars, is pulled over for following to close
Cops take 96 000, do not charge the guy with any crime, later gives back approx 1/3 to the guy to shut him up
Government (nee Cops) steal money from citizens and get away with it
Well that is more helpful.
Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.
For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?
Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?
I would advocate against any forfeiture until conviction. If you take money/property on probable cause only you may make it impossible for the person to actually defend themselves.I think more than that... A judge has to OK it based on specific probable cause of a CRIME. And the state must prove it's case, or the defendant get their property back, with added legal expenses reimbursed.
We need to change the law. The current standard is "preponderance" (more evidence than not). Under the current laws, the person who has their property stolen, doesn't have to be arrested or even accused of a crime. Under the current standard, the property is named as one of the litigants. It's State v. $989,763.25, for example. And under the current system, the government keeps the property unless the citizens sues to try to get it back.
It's a completely screwed up system that needs to be scrapped and re-thought from the ground on up.
Oh, and there shouldn't be monitory incentives on the part of the government agencies to steal people's property. They shouldn't be able to fun their personal political campaigns, buy daiquiri mixers, etc...from the proceeds of stealing money from the innocent.
Well that is more helpful.
Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.
For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?
Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?
I can understand an asset freeze during trial outside of money used to cover a lawyer and living expenses. But not outright seizing and taking money like is being g doneI would advocate against any forfeiture until conviction. If you take money/property on probable cause only you may make it impossible for the person to actually defend themselves.
I don’t know the specifics of this case but assume he - stupidly - consented to the search. Cops find the money and in their experience only drug dealers carry that kind of money. So they confiscate it as crime proceeds.Well that is more helpful.
Still a lot not covered to the story I imagine.
For starters if he was merely pulled over for following too closely how and why were they able to find and confiscate a bag of cash?
Following too closely is merely a ticketing or warning offense that does not allow search and seizure?
How this could ever be reconciled with the 4th amendment is a mystery. It probably has something to do with the practice being associated with the "war on drugs".
No.That's your informed opinion, is it?
If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.If you watched the video, you'd have answers to those questions.
No.
I have not been at all informed by the OP.
Posting a nearly 16 minute video (no I have not wasted time watching it) without any real synopsis does not lend itself to being informative to anyone.
If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.
"Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."
^^^That is the sum total of what was hopefully actually said about the OP's nearly 16 minutes of video.^^^
Apparently asking for any summary of a 16 minute video so one can know if it would be worth devoting any time to watching the video is just way to much to expect.
Just out of curiosity, what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?No.
I have not been at all informed by the OP.
Posting a nearly 16 minute video (no I have not wasted time watching it) without any real synopsis does not lend itself to being informative to anyone.
If the OP would have given us more than a vague and what appears to be a biased opinion does not provide answers.
"Once again, the cops steal from an innocent man."
^^^That is the sum total of what was hopefully actually said about the OP's nearly 16 minutes of video.^^^
Apparently asking for any summary of a 16 minute video so one can know if it would be worth devoting any time to watching the video is just way to much to expect.
Do you not watch Ozark?How do drug traffickers move their money?
But from what I read elsewhere and understand it was seized in relation to a drug offense and in court the dude agreed to the return of only a partial amount that was seized.I don’t know the specifics of this case but assume he - stupidly - consented to the search. Cops find the money and in their experience only drug dealers carry that kind of money. So they confiscate it as crime proceeds.
Happens more often than you’d expect. Carrying large sums of money is now evidence of criminality.
And if they test the money they’ll find drug resifue on some of cause much of the money in circulation has drug residue on it.
But from what I read elsewhere and understand it was seized in relation to a drug offense and in court the dude agreed to the return of only a partial amount that was seized.
I think if forfeiture has to happen the suspect should actually have to be charged with a crime and that crime proven in a criminal court. With civil forfeiture the suspect is not charged. Instead it is the property in question that is charged and tried in a civil court with a much lower standard of guilt and the ower is the one who has to prove innocence to get it back.If forfeiture has to happen, the the government should be required to give back the stuff in 15-20 days or less unless a judge OKs it.
In probably 95% (or likely more) of cases, it doesn't need to happen.
I suspect in almost all cases, its a 4th amendment violation or if not, we need new judges.
All of my posts have been quite explicit.Just out of curiosity, what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?