"Highway robbery". Police seize $50,000 via asset forfeiture "laws".

This is an actual picture of the cop celebrating after he took the money.

I-Team: Lawsuit filed over freeway cash seizures.

I-Team: I-80 cash seizures by sheriff's office raises questions.

• Nguyen: "I mean, you have no right to take this money."
  
• Deputy Dove: "Yes, I do."
  
• Nguyen: "I haven't done anything."
  
• Deputy Dove: "Yes, you have. I believe you have. I believe you have, ok."

WHAT THE...

When the driver asks about the illegal search and seizure, the cop goes on to say:

• Deputy Dove: "Well, I'm gonna search that vehicle first, ok?"
  
• Nguyen: "Hey, what's the reason you're searching my car?"
  
• Deputy Dove: "Because I'm talking to you... well, no, I don't have to explain that to you. I'm not going to explain that to you, but I am gonna put my drug dog on that (pointing to money). If my dog alerts, I'm seizing the money. You can try to get it back but you're not."
  
• Nguyen: (inaudible) got it in Vegas."
  
• Deputy Dove: "Good luck proving it. Good luck proving it. You'll burn it up in attorney fees before we give it back to you."

WHAT!?

So they count on the fact that they can steal YOUR money and that you'll be too poor to get it back...

War on drugs + asset forfeiture laws = RIP 4th Amendment.

There is no more protection under the 4th Amendment. ZERO, NONE.

Whether its this kind of insanity or the warrant-less spying, the TSA, the NSA, the SWAT teams etc., they do whatever they want.

Whether its a politician (Republican and Democrat) or a judge, they all take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So how is this allowed?

If their interpretation of the 4th Amendment is so incredibly narrow, then we need to enact specific laws outlawing this insanity.

This has to stop. Enough already.

The problem with the police approach, is that THEY KNOW that the majority of banknotes in circulation are tainted with narcotics, so they expect a high percentage to give a positive indication when they bring in the drug sniffing dogs.

That in itself is no indication that the owners of the cash are in any way involved in anything illegal, but the way the law works (law? What a joke) gives them the right to seize it anyway without actually charging the owner with anything. Easy money that gets divided up between the local cops and the state guys. Highway robberay at it's simplest!

Edited to add the following:

news.nationalgeographic.com... aine-money.html

Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with coc aine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject.

The "law" relies on the ignorance of the population of this issue to allow them to get away with the seizures.

If a cop stops you and you're in a vehicle, you have no rights. Period. As a prisoner in jail you would have more rights than you do at that traffic stop.

The only legal defense against a cop when you're driving is to not be near one. Everything else is simply a matter of probability if they decide to single you out.

Wow just wow.

a reply to: Aazadan

It seems that all they have to do is say they smelled pot, and that is all the justification they need to search the vehicle and make any seizures. Of course, they can't smell pot, but as long as they say that, for the dashcam and put it in their report, then all is fine and dandy.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Aazadan

It seems that all they have to do is say they smelled pot, and that is all the justification they need to search the vehicle and make any seizures. Of course, they can't smell pot, but as long as they say that, for the dashcam and put it in their report, then all is fine and dandy.

The problem here is that the cops should stop smoking the stuff, then they would stop smelling it. Really does make a mockery of the fourth. I would like to add, "Only in America" but sadly, it seems that this cancer is spreading throughout the Western world.

P

a reply to: Aazadan

um....no...

not sure what country you're talking about, but in the U.S. a motorist has specific rights, and protections under the law.

now, i could go into painful detail as to the legal differences between "operating a vehicle", and "driving a car", but i'll spare you, as it's easy enough to look up, if you care....

any officer who is ignorant of the law, has no place being in a position to enforce it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

IIRC . . .

so much cash is used in so much illegal drug trade . . . virtually any cash is likely to have sufficient residue on it to alert such dogs.

What a corruption generating setup!

Incredible.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Aazadan

It seems that all they have to do is say they smelled pot, and that is all the justification they need to search the vehicle and make any seizures. Of course, they can't smell pot, but as long as they say that, for the dashcam and put it in their report, then all is fine and dandy.

I was once pulled over for "driving suspiciously". The cop then "smelled alcohol coming from my car". Quite a feat since there had never once been even a sealed alcoholic drink in that car in the 10 years I owned it, and I don't drink so it clearly wasn't coming from me.

originally posted by: Daedalus
now, i could go into painful detail as to the legal differences between "operating a vehicle", and "driving a car", but i'll spare you, as it's easy enough to look up, if you care....

any officer who is ignorant of the law, has no place being in a position to enforce it.

During a stop (or any encounter with the police) you have no right to refuse the officers request. If they say do it, you are legally obligated to do it. To disobey is to commit an actual crime. If you believe the cops overstepped their bounds in the moment, your recourse is to take it to court after the fact. Then you can listen to the court side with the cops, unless you were directly injured as a result of the cops instructions.

a reply to: Britguy

The people of America are under attack on all fronts. There's an agenda at work here--to dumb down and distract the population while accelerating the collapse of this once-great nation. And sadly, it appears to be working. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might be right but a dog "alerting" signal is subjective and the pigs know how to game that just like everything else. In other words the dog alerting is trivial to them. They could get the dog to react to a sack lunch.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Britguy

You might be right but a dog "alerting" signal is subjective and the pigs know how to game that just like everything else. In other words the dog alerting is trivial to them. They could get the dog to react to a sack lunch.

Drug dogs wrong at least 50% of the time and as high as 80% of the time

It's amazing. We like to think we're all enlightened and mighty and scoff at the Dark Ages but we steal peoples property and lock them away robbing them of years of their life based on nonsense like drug dogs and ballistic fingerprinting.

We're no better than the phrenologists and eugenicists of years past. We just think we are. Laughing at the ignorant fools who drilled holes in heads to release demons while we use dogs and scratches in metal to send people to their deaths.

originally posted by: Aazadan
During a stop (or any encounter with the police) you have no right to refuse the officers request. If they say do it, you are legally obligated to do it. To disobey is to commit an actual crime. If you believe the cops overstepped their bounds in the moment, your recourse is to take it to court after the fact. Then you can listen to the court side with the cops, unless you were directly injured as a result of the cops instructions.

you have some real funny ideas about things....if it's not a direction you can refuse, then it's not a request.

and i'm not entirely sure where you get this idea that you can't refuse, or that a person has no rights, simply because they're interacting with a police officer.

the uniform, and badge are nothing more than symbols of that person having taken on the task of enforcing the law. it does not elevate them to some "superuser" status.. unless you are violating the law, a police officer is an equal citizen...it's only when you commit a crime, that they have any legal authority to take action against you.

After looking at the video there are a few things that I saw, that I know that could have gone differently.

The first is that people know their Miranda rights. To that end the following statement is very clear: You have the right to remain silent. But the problem is no one ever exercises that right, and tend to keep talking. If you are pulled over by the police, only speak when they ask a question, keep the answer short, truthful and only that. Nothing more. If more people did that, it would force the cops to have to follow the law.

If they ask you if they can search your vehicle, you can state, and many defense attornies will all state the same thing, Say no, I do not consent.

Now the officer will have to use the excuse that he smells something. Make him put himself on the line. And this officer dug himself in deeper and deeper.

What I am shocked to see, and one day it is going to happen, is where that the person doing the suing, a victim of the crime, taking the police to court for the crimes, and out right launching 2 lawsuits, one against the county or city that the police works in, and the other against the actual officer, and not settle out of court, to not only get it on public record, but to set a legal precedence.

Far too often, people are seeking just to get back and nothing more, failing to insist that the cops and those in those positions be held to a higher standard and to show that they are not above the law, and can be held accountable.

Immoral and unconstitutional process. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

It should be up to the state that the money was made illegally, not up to the citizen to prove that it was made legally.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Police have gotten way out of hand all over the country. They no longer "protect and serve". Instead, they have become something to be feared and avoided at all costs. They're now far more dangerous than any street gang out there because there's a psychological dynamic on both sides that creates a recipe for disaster with every encounter.

Police feel that they can do absolutely anything to you with no repercussions to them, up to and including killing you on the spot. That knowledge is cultivated and reinforced as each day goes by that they witness their colleagues getting away with such behavior with no consequences.

On the other side of the fence, society at large has it ingrained in their psyche that they must do anything the police tells them to do because the police are trained professionals entrusted to uphold the law, and if they don't follow the orders given there will be detrimental consequences.

Most people, including police, are clueless as to what the laws are and what their rights are because they have been changed and taken away so many times that it's impossible to keep up and know how to properly deal with a police encounter.

The law enforcement system is irreparably broken in every area and will never again be what it was originally intended to be, especially as long as its checks and balances and oversight systems are broken as well. The corruption from the top down has become a terminal cancer for which there's no cure.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
So they count on the fact that they can steal YOUR money and that you'll be too poor to get it back...

War on drugs + asset forfeiture laws = RIP 4th Amendment.

The war-on-drugs and the Supreme Court approved asset forfeiture laws mean we are no longer in a Constitutional Republic. It also means that the Supreme Court is no longer legitimate. I honestly don't understand why this, and other government actions have not yet sparked a regional insurrection or civil war.

The enforcement bureaus of this gangster government are murdering our wives and children, stealing our assets, doing home invasions and then laughing at our feeble attempts at getting justice. It's almost like we are switched off in the critical thinking department.

Having grown up along the I-10 corridor, we heard these stories all of the time. Rural Louisiana sheriffs pulling over drivers with out of state plates and searching the vehicles simply because I-10 is a "drug corridor".

I remember a story of an elderly woman who was traveling from CA to FL with all of her possessions and a good deal of cash. They pulled her over simply because of her CA plates. She conceded to a search, thinking she had nothing to hide. They found the cash and seized it, her car and all of her possessions - leaving her stranded in a dinky little backwater with no money.

Never let them search your vehicle if you haven't done anything.

These Draconian laws need to be repealed. It violates unreasonable search and seizure protections.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Immoral and unconstitutional process. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

It should be up to the state that the money was made illegally, not up to the citizen to prove that it was made legally.

Exactly.

What happend was basicaly a on the spot $50000 fine wirh no trial.

During a stop (or any encounter with the police) you have no right to refuse the officers request. If they say do it, you are legally obligated to do it. To disobey is to commit an actual crime. If you believe the cops overstepped their bounds in the moment, your recourse is to take it to court after the fact. Then you can listen to the court side with the cops, unless you were directly injured as a result of the cops instructions.

Sorry, I have to call BS on that one. There is the burden of reasonable grounds and it is not a simple matter of the cop telling you what to do or saying he smells pot or alcohol for the sake of it in it's own right. For alcohol suspicion a breathalyser is required. If refused, they can detain you and take you for a full test at the station. They cannot perform a search for the sake of performing a search.

It's obvious that all Law enforcement people should be forced to wear video and audio equipment. Not only to protect the public but the officers as well.

If the equipment fails...no court and no punishment.

Abuse of the public that pays the salary's of LEOs needs to stop!

I wonder why all the ATS LEO mods don't respond to these reports anymore.