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

Man! I hear and read so many stories of American cops.
Stories of Canadians having guns pointed at them and just generally being harassed by the power of the badge that provides near invincibility to some despicable humans.

That pic of the cop and dog makes me sick, (poor dog knows not what he does) so proud of the money they got for the cop shop and many high fives going about, and I am sure some of that money gets shared out amongst the perpetraitors. No empathy whatsoever, they look out for #1.

With some exceptions most Canadians don't really have to worry about cops unless they actually commited a crime.
Why are so many American cops such douchebags?

This is probably a very good reason why cops so vehemently support the 'war on drugs', it's a very convenient excuse for LEO to break the law and justify it.

So much for the lucky streak in Vegas, he'd be better of if he thought, 'What I win in Vegas, stays in Vegas', meaning he would have kept his money if he deposited it into an ATM, unless of course it is lillegal to deposit so much money.

I've always wanted to get a wild pet badger and house it in my trunk. When I get pulled over I'll tell the officer, that whatever he does, don't look in the trunk. That should do the trick. LOL!

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Komodo
and...

why is he running around with 50k in CASH again ?? ~~~!!

Why shouldn't he be?

Last time I checked having $50,000 in cash was not illegal?

So its no ones business

ok.. thx for the flameage there bro .. but..

to me, i could care less wtf he's carrying it for ~!~~ I Don't care AT All if he's sorting MOUNTAINS of coke or meth.. but EVERYONE IN THE F***** world KNOWS by now .. due to our police state in the USA lives in ...DOESN'T run around with 50k in cash.. this type of crap has been going at LEAST until 2009!!!! multiple threads on ATS ..

and if he can't figure THAT OUT and thinks USA is all happy go lucky and there are no corrupt cops .. !!! well..he just got a HUGE lesson ..

GET F**** REAL~!!!!

To get his money back, Nguyen had to sue Humboldt County, Dove and Sheriff Ed Kilgore, and the county eventually settled with Nguyen for $50,000 and $10,000 in attorney’s fees. In the suit, Ohlson contended that Dove had violated Nguyen’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure

www.offthegridnews.com...

It looks like he got his money back and it cost the county $10,000 for his legal fees.

The cop shuld be fired.

a reply to: gladtobehere

From what i read the attourney was able to get the money back for the guy, and this officer doofy has been doing this to several people for a long time. Best way to set this jerk off up is to roll through his neck of the woods with some cash and make a very public video of him attempting to sieze property illegaly and have this idiot fired.

They did that to a guy near Kalamazoo a few years ago and he won his money back but the town didn't have enough to pay him back. The wrote him a check that bounced and he pretty much had the town closed down till he got his cash.

originally posted by: Daedalus
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.

Because you don't. If the officer tells you to do something you have to do it. You do have basic constitutional protections in theory, but in practice tactics have been created to get around those like "smelling alcohol". A police officer should be an equal citizen but they aren't. Even if they couldn't order you around there is one very large difference: Their word is worth more than yours in court.

You also missed that they can get you when you don't commit a crime. If you are suspected of a crime, that is all the authority they need. A store can claim you stole something, then they can hunt you down, shoot you on a beach, and wait for you to die before they attempt to render aid. Or in the case of this thread they can see a pile of cash and say that is suspicious on it's own. Then take your stuff, and you will never get it back. When the police invaded my home they used heat coming from the house as proof of drugs, and what I assume was SWAT came in. They stole anything I owned of value and I never got any of it back. It's true there were growing lights in the place and they do give off heat signatures, but they were for the tomato plants my roommate was growing indoors (I had a dog that would tear up the garden... until the cops murdered it in that raid).

If the police are involved, in that moment you have no rights. All you can do is attempt to take them to court after the fact.

I've been following asset 'forfeiture' laws for some time and the manner in which they are conducted is obscene.

Before I even begin, let me just express how asinine it is to use a narcotics canine to detect drug residue on money. All money in circulation has traces of narcotics. ALL OF IT. This doesn't amount to probable cause. There MUST be additional, aggravating circumstances to conclude the money is part of an illegal enterprise.

Secondly, this flies in the face of due process. The money is seized and no charges are filed. This means that it is up to the victim to prove the legality of the money (this is a civil loop-hole, not a criminal matter).

Lastly, the reason these laws are so obscenely abused is because it directly funds the departments who seize the assets. There is a financial incentive for officers to make illegal pre-text stops and seize an individuals property without probable cause.

And believe it or not, Republicans (in general) love this legal loop-hole because it does actually put a dent in the illegal drug, arms, sex, etc. trade. The downside is that it also unduly places financial hardships upon individuals who are victimized by this.

example: If you're driving across state and your property is seized, you must petition the court for its release in the jurisdiction within which it was seized, even if you live several states away.

And let's face it, who can afford the travel expenses and court costs considering your money was just stolen by the government?

I mean, what else can you say? It's a massive abuse of the law, everyone knows it. Police DGAF, prosecutors and the AG DGAF, your governor DGAF and neither do your elected representatives.

The only way to avoid this is to convert it to electronic cash, deposit it into a bank and let the government track and tax the hell out of it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If the officer tells you to do something you have to do it.

No you don't... You don't HAVE to do anything however, consequences may ensue. You are only obliged to follow lawful orders, and yes you have the legal right to defend yourself from physical/deadly force perpetrated by an officer if they have no standing for use of force. But this is at the sole discretion of the individual and I highly suggest you know the laws and know what you're physically and legally capable of.

a reply to: Daedalus

prety sure hes saying while we have rights it doesn't matter in the moment as if we spite or challenge them they will just either beat us arrest us and trump up the charges and then cost us money to prove our innocence .do we have rights technically sure but exercising those rights gets you labeled anti social or worse labled a potential criminal for not wanting to interact with a militarized police officer

there dogs will bark or indicate drugs if the cop wants them to.

they KNOW all money is tainted by narcotics so all they have to do is brign in dog have it detect drug residue and bamm cash seized magicly it now belongs to them with no trial and you have to spend your money in a vain attempt to get back the cash they stole from you hence why the cop said to the man in the ops article,oh were taking it and you cant do a damn thing about it because of asset seizure laws.this is why i refuse to carry cash on any kind of road trip or multi state drive as its not worth getting jacked and as it ammounts to a good deal of police funding(like most of the failed war on drugs) that they will fight it tooth and nail to prevent this little income gaining scheme from becoming illegal.

if people try to change the law the police will scream "what about the children! think of the children the sky will fall if we dont seize assets from drug dealers i mean who else butt a drug dealer carries that much cash around?" and "dont tie our hands were trying to stop evil drug users and cartel people etc " or hey they might just like the car you drive pull you over "smell drugs" and get themselves a brand new car instantly for the police force(see season 4 episode of the sheild where vick macky just has some one pull over a black man driving a dodge charger because he wants a new ride for work)

a reply to: Toadmund
en.wikipedia.org... canada does asset forfeture too but they do it opposite of the usa you have to be convicted for them to keep your property unlike in the usa where its theres and you have to prove you deserve it back

originally posted by: Daedalus

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.

That may be how it is on paper, but try that with a Kentucky state police and you will be lucky if all you get is beaten, if not shot. In the real world, cops are law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, jury, jailer, and executioner.

When are people going to wake up and see that the "war on drugs" is a DECLARED war, unlike Iraq.

The government declared WAR on this issue, they used that term - which is a legal term with real meaning, because they wanted to create a scenario where the "rules of war" are in order.

The reason he can "take" the money is because during war all the rules are gone. In fact, it he could do far, far worse to anyone he pleases if he initiates the "war rules" by stating, "I have deemed you an enemy because I think you are a drug (war) criminal." Listen to the words they have been taught to use, they are declaring each person they stop and "enemy combatant on the field of battle" and they are allowed to kill that person of they feel drugs are involved - feel.

The use of the word "war" is NOT a metaphor, it is a statement of something various serious that allows people to be arrested or even killed because during war the standard rules do not apply. Is the "war on drugs" a failure - HELL NO, the damn thing was a huge success as there was no intention on eliminating the use of drugs, as even the rules of war do not allow for preventing consumption of anything only the selling of contraband and the war is on "selling" or "possessing" both are about distributing. Push the rhetoric aside and research the word "war" and what it means when used in a military context.

Notice how you do not need a warrant when drugs are suspected but if a person is suspected of stealing a orange you need one? If a policeman things you stole something he needs to go through legal hoops to get you, but if he just thinks you have drugs he can do as he pleases. Why the difference? War...

This happened so long ago that there is not a sole in congress that has a clue as they were all raised on DARE and the rest of the propaganda so this will never go away. It is forever and it is right in front of people, in fact, they use the language that allows this to happen like it is some dogooder effort to save the kids.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
No you don't... You don't HAVE to do anything however, consequences may ensue. You are only obliged to follow lawful orders, and yes you have the legal right to defend yourself from physical/deadly force perpetrated by an officer if they have no standing for use of force. But this is at the sole discretion of the individual and I highly suggest you know the laws and know what you're physically and legally capable of.

Tell that to the woman who was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting an officer when she refused a cops sexual advances, so he handcuffed and raped her in the back of his car.

In the moment, anything a cop tells you to do is lawful. If you plead otherwise they'll say you don't know the law and this isn't the time to debate the law. They are in charge, period. What they say goes. Your only recourse is to goto court after the fact and try to get an admission of wrongdoing from the police, which is worthless.

In theory we have all sorts of laws and protections, in practice due to the tough on crime approach and police training that tells them someone who doesn't instantly and 100% comply is a threat that needs to be taken out have combined to give you no rights in the moment. To refuse the order creates an actual crime you can and will be charged with.

a reply to: Aazadan

and now i understand why you hold the opinion you hold.

i'll not argue it any further with you, because there is no way for you to UN-experience what happened to you.

you've had one of the most negative interactions with law enforcement someone can have, and that will forever color your views on them.


say no more..

originally posted by: Anonex
That may be how it is on paper, but try that with a Kentucky state police and you will be lucky if all you get is beaten, if not shot. In the real world, cops are law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, jury, jailer, and executioner.

in this instance, how it is "on paper" is all that matters...because that paper happens to be the supreme law of the land..

i love how people keep saying to me "well, try that in [insert state here]"...as if just because that's how they do things there, it somehow makes it right...if you ask me, the state's people name for me to "try it in", stating that i could be beaten or shot....those are states we should be looking into....the states should be investigating, or perhaps even the FBI..

a reply to: Britguy

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!! This happened to my daughter earlier this year. Rather than give a cent to the county/court system, she invested $500 in a good attorney (he cut her a break on his fees). Best money she's ever spent.

After being stopped for speeding, the cop said she looked lethargic and used the "I smell pot" card which gave him probable cause to search her car. He found a pipe he said was used to "smoke cannabis" but it was free of any residue. He gave her a summons to appear in court for possession of drug paraphernalia and a ticket for speeding.

She showed up to court with her attorney who got it DISMISSED!!

She still had to pay the fine for speeding, but I am SO happy this "charge" didn't stick. BTW those types of things are supposed to be decriminalized, but they still fine you and suspend your DL for like a year or two.

Hope they get every cent, plus all those lawyers fees and court costs the LEO is concerned about, back ASAP!

a reply to: gladtobehere

These LEO's use phony pretense to engage in banditry. They are highwaymen, and deserve to be treated as such by decent people.

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Komodo
and...

why is he running around with 50k in CASH again ?? ~~~!!

Why shouldn't he be?

Last time I checked having $50,000 in cash was not illegal?

So its no ones business

ok.. thx for the flameage there bro .. but..

to me, i could care less wtf he's carrying it for ~!~~ I Don't care AT All if he's sorting MOUNTAINS of coke or meth.. but EVERYONE IN THE F***** world KNOWS by now .. due to our police state in the USA lives in ...DOESN'T run around with 50k in cash.. this type of crap has been going at LEAST until 2009!!!! multiple threads on ATS ..

and if he can't figure THAT OUT and thinks USA is all happy go lucky and there are no corrupt cops .. !!! well..he just got a HUGE lesson ..

GET F**** REAL~!!!!

So you are blaming this guy for cashing in his casino winnings and taking it home???

Where is the logic in that?

It was his money.

I can't believe anyone is shocked or surprised at their behavior. This is the new face of "law enforcement" in Amerika and it's not going to get better any time soon. Or ever. There is no such thing as an honest cop. Why do I say that? Because the "good" ones know what is happening, see their fellow officer do what they do and don't speak up. They are too worried about their own job to defend an innocent person from these scum or believe they need to obey the thin blue line creed. I lump them all together as they do us. Guilty till proven innocent.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous. You make such absurd assumptions. Police are not the military, therefor they have no jurisdiction to enact a congressionally declared war. They are absolutely bound by constitutional protections such as due process. I explained how it works, it's a civil forfeiture, not a criminal matter.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Aazadan
...now i understand why you hold the opinion you hold...i'll not argue it any further with you...say no more...

ditto, there's no point in discussing an alternative view with you.