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.

 

Its been complete hell- How police used a traffic stop to take 91800 dollars from an innocent man

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It does not scream illegit! It screems LEGIT! That is how it is supposed to be! Unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt it is. It may only be reserved on probable cause and affirmation after the judge has given a warrant.

Your response clearly exemplifies what is wrong of late.




posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

I find it weird that they have these waivers ready and available to fill out in thier vehicles. From what I read, they were having issues about seizing property and this is what they came up with:


As far as seizing money, this is apparently happening quite a bit in the state of Wyoming. Here is a website that notates some other property/money seizing done. Most notable is that these people have no criminal background and are released at the point of signing the waiver, with no additional action taken. Making it seem like it is a money grab:


In December 2008, a man from Florida was pulled over on I-80 here in Wyoming. A search of his car revealed $17,000 in cash and a .44 caliber pistol. Wyoming law enforcement seized this property. The man was not charged with a crime and allowed go on his way. After initially offering to return 10% of these funds, then engaging with the property owner’s attorney, the Wyoming Attorney General returned the $17,000 and kept the pistol, in an agreement releasing the state of any liability surrounding the seizure.

In July 2009, a duffel bag containing $774,506.00 in cash and gold was seized from a man after he landed on a plane in Jackson from Chicago. The man was not charged with a crime. Neither the federal Drug Enforcement Agency nor the Wyoming AG could make a case, and the property was returned a month later.

In June 2010, Wyoming Highway Patrol pulled over three men travelling from North Carolina to Oregon. During the officer’s investigation, the driver went to the back of the car to retrieve some money. Upon noticing the $7,000 in cash that the driver was transporting, the officer seized the funds. No one was arrested or charged with a crime. The driver’s wife explained in a letter a few days later that the cash was part of their business. Two months after that, the money was returned to the driver after he signed a document releasing the state of any liability relating to the seizure.

(These cases are 2008-0405, 2009-0246, and 2010-0243, listed on the Attorney General’s forfeiture database. I researched the cases based on the fact that the money was actually returned, and have not had the time to look at the other 400 or so cases in the time period.)

These cases also got their money back eventually, but why should they be able to take your stuff in the first place? Especially when not charging you with a crime? I don't get it...

Thanks
blend



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

I thought you yanks like us had the presumption of innocence. Secondly why the insistence on the signing of the waivers, if the LEO's were on solid ground?


This is one where you have to prove yourself innocent to get your money and/or stuff back. I first heard about it about 15-20 years ago, it was being used to snag people/s money (suspected drug money) at airports. The report I saw (may have been a Dateline) where if you were an an airport (Nashville) and flying to some Texas airport and you declared money over a certain amount they assumed you were going to buy drugs. Problem is a lot of small businesses like to take advantage of paying cash, thereby getting things at a lower price. The report I saw only called out this situation, but there have been so many reports the last few years it's obviously a bigger problem. Imagine if they came into your house and decided they wanted your stuff. Thought you had too much money around and that it must be for something illegal, therefore they have a right to take it.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

Thats messed up. The guy messed up. The cops DIDNT help. This man would be better off with less cops in his life. Thats the lesson.

Do they want that to be the lesson?.... because it is.

edit on 12 3 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Here sir, sign this document and give us your money, or go to jail.......



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Answering a multiple-choice question with one answer is what got him.
He should have said no drugs but he has his stash and intend to keep it stashed away,
now what about his traffic infraction?

He should have contested being profiled and pulled-over for no reason other than to harass/molest.



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

I thought you yanks like us had the presumption of innocence. Secondly why the insistence on the signing of the waivers, if the LEO's were on solid ground?


You must not have noticed my second post prior to yours.
"I should have mentioned I'm absolutely opposed to seizing property until after a person has been charged and convicted, but I'm still skeptical of this guys story. "



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Blaine91555


$91,800 hidden in a speaker and he lied and said it was not his. I can't say I blame the officers for not believing him and thinking it was contraband. People simply do not carry that kind of cash cross country if there is no reason to hide it.

What "People"? Because you don't, nobody does?

Cash isn't contraband, contraband is illegal drugs, stolen goods, Cuban cigars, whatever. Cash is only 'connected' to illegal activity by law enforcement on the hi way, without any prior record, without probable cause, because they want to steal it. They even admit it.


...I desire that the property or currency be disposed of as the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation sees fit...


Theres been no probable cause to search, confiscate and keep anything, let alone do whatever they see fit, without a hearing before a judge. Which if they had done would have been returned to him , which happened eventually.

I can hear the cops clapping the hi way thief on the back, "better luck next time, pardner"!


Again you did not notice my second post -

"I should have mentioned I'm absolutely opposed to seizing property until after a person has been charged and convicted, but I'm still skeptical of this guys story. "

Get real though. The reason people don't carry that much in cash is safety. There are much better ways and it's 2017, not 1950. Many ways of keeping cash available when needed are there for anyone to use. In fact I doubt a commercial property would accept cash as payment.

I'm not out of line thinking that this smells a little more than fishy. Yes it's wrong to confiscate before a charge and a trial, but that does not make his story smell any better.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

My post came from direct experience in the metals industry. Many people invest in metals (precious and otherwise) to hold tangible assets, travel the country, indeed the world with boatloads of currency (or metal) to buy and sell.

They carry their assets with them, are quite secure from robbery, except the new Hiway robbers, of course.

Small businesses that make regular cash deposits to banks carry larger sums as well. Lots of people do their own small traveling business buying and selling at 'shows'. Gun shows, coin , stamp and rock shows...

Some are just eccentric, preferring to keep their 'assets in a mattress' types.

Its not against the law.

Suspicion without grounds used as an excuse to confiscate private property is.

And I appreciate your knowledge of the constitution and bill of rights. I saved your reply for last because I respect you.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Not to mention the people that purchase homes and pay cash in full.

We have a lot of cash-purchased homes in my neck of the woods - it's common.

And that's what this guy (phil) was looking to do - purchase a studio. We are still free to travel with large amounts of cash, coin, jewelry (as long as it's not stolen or related to drugs)... am I right?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven Phil had freaked, lied, wasn't aware of his rights and fell for the intimidation tactics which then led to him signing a waiver (of ownership of the cash)


freaked or was just plain stupid. it'd be a cold day in hell before i signed off 91.000 of my own (legitimate) cash to some traffic cop. no chance.

he could try to intimidate me all he wanted but it just wouldn't happen. silly man.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: intrptr

Not to mention the people that purchase homes and pay cash in full.

We have a lot of cash-purchased homes in my neck of the woods - it's common.

And that's what this guy (phil) was looking to do - purchase a studio. We are still free to travel with large amounts of cash, coin, jewelry (as long as it's not stolen or related to drugs)... am I right?


Not anymore apparently.

Just like cops always ask if you have any guns, they also now ask if you have large amounts of cash.

Both questions go against Bill of Rights Edict.

They are only allowed to ask you anything in correlation to what 'violation' they stopped you for in the first place, or anything they happen to spot while standing outside your car window. They do not have the right to ask a bunch of entrapment questions that lead down the path to "Mind if we look"? Then, "Oh you do mind"? Then call in a 'non police' dog, that 'hits' and justifies a search, then seizure.

Its a pre written script they follow to get you to allow them to violate your rights.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So what's a guy to do??

Just keep asking the officer "Am I being detained. Am I free to go?"



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: intrptr

So what's a guy to do??

Just keep asking the officer "Am I being detained. Am I free to go?"

Yes. Additionally, I don't submit to searches and if that doesn't work, I submit under protest.

Verbalizing it reflects you aren't resisting but don't agree, which will come out later.

And don't sign any but the ticket for why they stopped you. The 'free to go if you sign a waiver' is a bluff.




top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join