It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Equitable Sharing, highway interdiction, 400 seizures from 17 states examined

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The Washington Post is doing a series covering 400 police seizures of cash from motorists, often times, no crimes have occurred but large sums of money are being seized from the people. The police are being trained in highway interdiction, and using equitable sharing to divvy up the loot. This is happening in at least 17 different states.

Apparently the forth amendment doesn't protect our rights.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since 9/11/01 the police across the nation have made 61,998 seizures without warrants or indictments.

Here are some of the cases:

Over the next two hours, he would be detained without charges, handcuffed and taken to a nearby police station. He also would be stripped of $17,550 in cash — money that he had earned through the Smoking Roosters, a small barbecue restaurant he owned in Staunton, Va. Stuart said he was going to use the money that night for supplies and equipment.


one story after another:

Ashby asked how much currency was in the van. Costello gave a low-ball estimate of $5,000 to $10,000, records show. He agreed to a search because he believed he had done nothing wrong, he told The Post. Ashby did not find any drugs, but he turned up more than $32,000 in the van and seized it through the federal Equitable Sharing Program.



When a search turned up Lee’s remaining $2,400 in cash, Dove and his colleague exchanged high-fives, Lee said. Dove said he was taking the money under state law because he was convinced that Lee was involved in a drug run. Lee was left with only the $151 in his pocket.


Washington Post




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Isn't this a practical application of wealth redistribution?

How can they have the right to seize assets without a crime being committed?

Because large amounts of cash can be used for drugs sales we will take your money just in case, oh if you fight for your money you will only get back a fraction of what we take from you!



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is to keep tptb making money from those of us that keep our money "under our mattresses ".

This countries laws are a mess. I'm appalled.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I

On 2 occasions I was caught with large sums of money. Once driving thru Oklahoma . No probable cause
No permission to search. They brought out the canine. The dog walked around vehicle and just set down.
The officer said that was a passive alert and took that as his probable cause to search my vehicle.
The found nothing else but cash. They offered to release me if I signed the money away I refused.
So we went to court. After all was said and done the gov took 43% my attorney another 30 % I got back 27%
But if you count my other expenses such as airfare and hotels for the few court appearances . I would say I was probably about even if I would have just signed it away. I was able to prove the money was not drug money.

The second time I was catching a flight from NYC to Vegas with a money belt. They let me board the airline
And had Vegas PD waiting for me . Knowing my chances the second time I just signed it away got right back on the plane and back to NYC the money they confiscated was money I was planning to gamble and party with..

It's horrible they can do this and get away with it... Definatly highway robbery...



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Just saw the story in the Post. A couple questions crossed my mind.

Is the Post running these stories to reinforce the sense of powerlessness amongst the people?

Why haven't more people reacted?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mcChoodles
Just saw the story in the Post. A couple questions crossed my mind.

Is the Post running these stories to reinforce the sense of powerlessness amongst the people?

Why haven't more people reacted?


Because people are just plain scared of these militarized police forces across the USA. I remember a few years back an attorney in TX put a sign up on his property that was next to a major highway that simply read JUST SAY NO TO ILLEGAL CAR SEARCHES. This lawyer was basically run off his property by the local and state authorities through litigation of minor homeowner infraction they eventually had it taken down by an obscure law that Lady Bird Johnson had push through congress the keep America beautiful act of clearing up unsightly advertisements along federal highways.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The people in DC can actually do something about it. If they choose to make a difference. Unless these issues are known no changes can occur.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me where the presumption of innocence and due process fit into this horrendous violation of our rights?

I have known about this kind of thing at airports for a long, long, time. But its not supposed to happen, especially to people who are just driving down the road. If you have a large sum of cash on you make sure you have luggage and are not doing a one or two day trip. Otherwise, you might make it onto your plane, but your money wont. The police will suspect 'your money' of being involved in drug trafficking. Not you, your money. So your money gets arrested. You are free to go but your money stays behind.

The Black Asphalt website is run by a sheriffs department. On it law enforcement officers can go brag and upload pictures of their biggest hauls using interdiction. There is even a contest for the officer who pulls in the most money by the end of the year. He is awarded the title Black Knight. You cant tell me that with all the bragging, one-upmanship, and the promise of the title Black Knight that there are no police officers who would abuse their authority. I think just the participation in the contest should void any seizures they make due to a conflict of interests.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Actually this is illegal. Per the commerce clause only the Federal Govt. can regulate interstate commerce. Only Federal officers can seize cash. State and local police were never supposed to have this power.

Article 1 sec. 8 para 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Also as a thought. Couldn't this be considered a "bill of Attainder?
edit on 9-9-2014 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Can anyone tell me where the presumption of innocence and due process fit into this horrendous violation of our rights?


It doesn't. They charge your property with the offense. Since your property has no rights it is presumed guilty and there is no trial. The state can do whatever it wants to your property such as repurpose it.

This loophole in the law has existed since the beginning of the country and was even used to confiscate naval vessels by the very people who wrote the constitution. It wasn't until relatively recently however that the equitable sharing aspect was brought into the picture. Previously if law enforcement took something it all went to the feds but now the very police department that takes the property gets to have it.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ntech
Actually this is illegal. Per the commerce clause only the Federal Govt. can regulate interstate commerce. Only Federal officers can seize cash. State and local police were never supposed to have this power.

Article 1 sec. 8 para 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Also as a thought. Couldn't this be considered a "bill of Attainder?


You appear to be misguided that our government fallows the rules set out in our constitution. That document has been under attack since the day it was written by the central government tenets of Hamilton, Lincoln, and FDR and now BHO.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
So, basically your best bet is to hide your money better when you travel? Any suggestions?

Seriously. How does one travel with cash without losing it to the blue mafia. How do you keep from being profiled for this?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tovenar
So, basically your best bet is to hide your money better when you travel? Any suggestions?

Seriously. How does one travel with cash without losing it to the blue mafia. How do you keep from being profiled for this?

You can't avoid it, with the war on drugs the police are the soldiers and we are the enemy. In some states they can just take your money with no due process, unbelievable.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

How can an inanimate object be charged for an offense it is incapable of committing? If that is the case, I am going to start a new branch of law defending inanimate objects. If they can be charged the same as people, they should have the same rights as people.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Aazadan

How can an inanimate object be charged for an offense it is incapable of committing? If that is the case, I am going to start a new branch of law defending inanimate objects. If they can be charged the same as people, they should have the same rights as people.



Because the law says it can be. This is a very old law and was used by the Colonials and Brittish prior to the constitution, then used again after the constitution was written. It didn't get popular until recently, and that's because the ones charging the crime now get to keep the property. That gives them a direct incentive to press charges.

As far as defending property, property has no rights. How can you defend an object in court when it doesn't even get a trial? People have rights, which is why they can fight back, objects don't so they can't be defended.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This made my day. I was thinking about the subject of interdiction and I decided to do a little experiment and call the local police department, non-e of course. I said I had some questions about the law that I hoped someone could explain to me. I got an officer who seemed willing to listen to my questions. I asked about interdiction, and how they could just take someone's money based on the idea that the money was involved in drug trafficking but not the people. I asked how that worked. Immediately, he got angry. I could tell he was holding back. He said, "Police have probable cause to take action. We don't just go around taking money from people." I said, "Of course not, that would be illegal." He said, "No it wouldn't. Let me explain something to you. I am a police officer. I can come to your house, kick in your front door, slam you onto the floor and cuff you while my partner browses through your belongings taking whatever he wants to take. When we are done, I will take you to the station and put you in a holding cell. 72 hours later I will let you out and send you on your way. The end. There is nothing you can do about it." I replied, "You have to have a warrant to come into my house and take something. You cant just do it because you feel like it." Again he said, "Yes I can. The warrant just makes whatever I find admissible in court as evidence. If I have no intent on taking you to court, what do I need a warrant for?"

Have a nice day.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Oh, the things they have come to justify with the War On Drugs.

And the police wonder why the public is growing ever more hostile toward them...



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel
I am surprised this thread has received so little interest. I had a friend
who was paid $4-5000 in cash. The cops took it. This didn't make the list.
It was never acknowledged.

Some cops have familiar spirits that tell them who to stop. Kind of hard
to beat if you don't have some kind of protection.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tovenar
Hiding it wont help if you go through an airport. The metal detectors will pick up the mag strips in the money. They know exactly how much cash you have on your person, or in your bag.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

You're right. They don't follow the constitution until someone calls them on there actions. But I think I'm right there though. This does seem to be a "bill of attainder.

Bill of Attainder link.




top topics



 
10

log in

join