carlfense Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges. Holders action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs. . . . The decision follows a Washington Post investigation published in September that found that police have made cash seizures worth almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post found that local and state police routinely pulled over drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to warrantless searches and seized large amounts of cash without evidence of wrongdoing. The law allows such seizures and forces the owners to prove their property was legally acquired in order to get it back. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html 1 Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 How will BRI pay off his student loans now? 1 Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Too bad a majority of the cash that is seized is coming from drug runners and not Samantha in her minivan taking her kids to soccer practice. The day this douche leaves office is a good day.............. Link to comment
suh_fan93 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm sure the local and state police never helped themselves to any of that confiscated money... Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 A majority of police stations, probably not. The NYPD and LAPD, you betchya. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm sure the local and state police never helped themselves to any of that confiscated money... Are you trying to imply that officers are pocketing this money on a large basis? Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Too bad a majority of the cash that is seized is coming from drug runners and not Samantha in her minivan taking her kids to soccer practice. How do you know that? You might be right . . . but I think the burden of proof belongs with the state. They shouldn't be able to seize my cash or car unless and until I can prove where/how I got it. On the other hand, if they can (and do!) prove that it's drug money or assets associated with drug running/selling it makes perfect sense. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Too bad a majority of the cash that is seized is coming from drug runners and not Samantha in her minivan taking her kids to soccer practice. How do you know that? You might be right . . . but I think the burden of proof belongs with the state. They shouldn't be able to seize my cash or car unless and until I can prove where/how I got it. On the other hand, if they can (and do!) prove that it's drug money or assets associated with drug running/selling it makes perfect sense. Experience from what I've seen/heard, at least around here. If officers are seizing money on something like a simple traffic offense, then I have an issue with that. I've heard, though I've never read it personally, that there is a federal law that states you can't transport X amount of money from state to state without some sort of paperwork. I don't work drug interdiction, I did at one time for a short while, so I can't recite it word for word for you unfortunately. I would never seize money just because I could, it would have to be tied to a crime or I think it's unethical. Of course I didn't have a problem with the US Supreme Courts decisions on cell phone searches and needing a warrant. I was always cautious and did that anyways. I take the approach, just because I CAN do something, doesn't mean I WILL/SHOULD do something. I think some stuff is, for lack of better terms, chicken sh#t and would rather catch someone another way. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800. Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, La. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal. A 40-year-old Hispanic carpenter from New Jersey was stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia for having tinted windows. Police said he appeared nervous and consented to a search. They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. He had to hire a lawyer to get back his money. Mandrel Stuart, a 35-year-old African American owner of a small barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Va., was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction on Interstate 66 in Fairfax. He rejected a settlement with the government for half of his money and demanded a jury trial. He eventually got his money back but lost his business because he didn’t have the cash to pay his overhead. “I paid taxes on that money. I worked for that money,” Stuart said. “Why should I give them my money?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it.Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule. Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it.Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule. http://www.fairfieldsuntimes.com/opinion/article_a01634e8-a0d7-11e4-9397-878e8419d604.html WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” Idk Carl, seems pretty open now. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 But does Holder's proclamation supersede the Supreme Court's ruling that police don't need to know the law? If you assume something is a law then police are fine to enforce it.Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule. http://www.fairfieldsuntimes.com/opinion/article_a01634e8-a0d7-11e4-9397-878e8419d604.html WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.” Idk Carl, seems pretty open now. The difference is one between using something illegally (but erroneously) seized as evidence and refusing to return money illegally (but erroneously) seized. Link to comment
Recommended Posts