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

a reply to: ThichHeaded

whoosh, like...over my head?

Please.
You don't know squat

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You don't know squat

I apparently know enough.. You can take what i said for what it is..

a reply to: derfreebie
I know a trucker that did something like that. Every time he went through a certain state, there was a cop that would pull him over to search for a radar detector. After like the fifth time it happened, he went out and got a broken one, removed the circuts, and placed a $100 in it. Cop pulled him over, confiscated it after he told the cop it was his bank, and gave him a hefty fine. Gets to court, tells his story, judge opened it up. Cop was arrested, charged, and convicted of armed robbery. Granted it was like 20 years ago, I doubt it would work these days.

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Be careful out there, folks. Don't speed, or even do 'soft stops' or 'rolling stops' at STOP signs.


ETA SOURCE: Know Your Rights

Don't speed? Are you kidding me?

Check your states laws please. I know in NC the police have the right to stop you:
1. For going too fast
2. Going too slow
3. Going the speed limit

Yes, that's right. On the law books in NC police have the right to stop you for GOING THE SPEED LIMIT.

So, just like "I smelled something" they can just "decide" to stop you.

Friends with a few officers, and I never miss a chance to pick their brains when I get the chance. Told me the same thing, they look for people going right at the speed limit because it's suspicious.

a reply to: TKDRL

I've been following this on another site I frequent. The cop told the guy that if he forgot about the cash, he could keep his car and the cashiers checks in his possession. This is more than illegal seizure, this is downright extortion and theft.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The cop told the guy that if he forgot about the cash, he could keep his car and the cashiers checks in his possession.

That's what I read, too - from the original OP's source.

It's ridiculous.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Even more disgusting then. Can't say it surprises me any these days. All those good cops I keep hearing about really need to start cleaning out the crap in their ranks ASAP. More and more people are distrusting and hating cops.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
You have the right to remain silent.

You have the right to an attorney.

Your money has absolutely no rights at all.

Welcome to the world of civil forfeiture, where your money is literally presumed guilty until proven innocent. One of the greatest scams known to man and it's dis-serving plenty, daily.

Hard to believe our founding fathers were the ones that introduced the concept to the US isn't it? All done for political expediency, it's so much easier to charge property with a crime than a person. It wasn't until recently though that the group that seized the funds was the group that got to keep the money. That's when the real corruption started.

The founding fathers did not introduce this concept, in fact they anticipated and rejected it:" no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process."

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You are right. It is truly shamefull. The cop needs to be sitting in prison with the other thieves.

I like the cut of your jib. You can come to my house and drink my beer any time.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You are right. It is truly shamefull. The cop needs to be sitting in prison with the other thieves.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Although I agree with most of your posts, don't be fooled--Denocrats love forfeiture laws and some of the biggest proponents are Democratic politicians and some of the biggest forfeitures happen in blue states. It is about power, control, and the statist mindset.

a reply to: NavyDoc

They all love it, I just happen to think it's more funny that Republicans "defenders of freedom and the Constitution" support it so much.

originally posted by: OneManArmy
That would be the majority then.

They arent the sharpest tools in the box. All the steroids have turned their brains to gravy.

lol, was there supposed to be a point somewhere in there, or were you just trying to be inflammatory?

a reply to: OneManArmy

i believe he was being facetious, my good man...

Pardon me if this has already been mentioned....I just read recently that Pennsylvania police can now search cars without a warrant of any kind. Permission need not apply.

lancasteronline.com... de=jqm

Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search. That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery. The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia. Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”

Bad news for citizens!
What else is new?

a reply to: gladtobehere

Not one to typically defend cops, but there is another possibility. I've been around a long time and these deals are not done just by some happenstance situation where the cop innocently pulls the guy over, and just happens to had a drug K9 riding with him. First, some cops in better organized agencies have training in how to note extremely subtle signs of guilt, something to hide, and nervousness. Sorta like the old story of the guy walking by a cop on the beat and starting to whistle. --Something fishy there!

But usually, at some point in the legitimate busts an informant got on the horn and says to his contact that Johnny Quick is heading to Dallas with 50k in an aluminum briefcase. The message gets relayed to Officer Smeet in Podunk, Texas, and his office gets a nice fat, windfall thanks to the attempted move of drug money through his district. The kicker here is that the cartel will not know for sure if the courier had been ratted on or if the traffic stop was a legitimate one gone bad for them. And the local cop house gets a bundle to buy themselves some heavy armor.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Any lawyer worth a dang would get that money back in a heartbeat, and any damages you may have incurred from having the money seized, including your lawyers fees. That only works if you are a drug dealer and are afraid and unrepresented.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
You have the right to remain silent.

You have the right to an attorney.

Your money has absolutely no rights at all.

Welcome to the world of civil forfeiture, where your money is literally presumed guilty until proven innocent. One of the greatest scams known to man and it's dis-serving plenty, daily.

Hard to believe our founding fathers were the ones that introduced the concept to the US isn't it? All done for political expediency, it's so much easier to charge property with a crime than a person. It wasn't until recently though that the group that seized the funds was the group that got to keep the money. That's when the real corruption started.

The founding fathers did not introduce this concept, in fact they anticipated and rejected it:" no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process."

You should learn your history. It was used quite often to seize ships by the very people who wrote the lines about due process. Property isn't a person, it doesn't get due process. For the most part it was used responsibly however until police departments were told they could keep the funds they stole.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
You have the right to remain silent.

You have the right to an attorney.

Your money has absolutely no rights at all.

Welcome to the world of civil forfeiture, where your money is literally presumed guilty until proven innocent. One of the greatest scams known to man and it's dis-serving plenty, daily.

Hard to believe our founding fathers were the ones that introduced the concept to the US isn't it? All done for political expediency, it's so much easier to charge property with a crime than a person. It wasn't until recently though that the group that seized the funds was the group that got to keep the money. That's when the real corruption started.

The founding fathers did not introduce this concept, in fact they anticipated and rejected it:" no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process."

You should learn your history. It was used quite often to seize ships by the very people who wrote the lines about due process. Property isn't a person, it doesn't get due process. For the most part it was used responsibly however until police departments were told they could keep the funds they stole.

... The Fourth Amendment does protect personal property from searches and seizures within a particular context. Just not when it's in plain view, generally.

a reply to: Aazadan

"Learn some history" back at you. If you mean seizing ships of the enemy during time of war, yes, but that is apples and kumquats. Please point out examples of seizure of American property without due process after the signing of that document.