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.

 

Police refuse to return $190,040 even after a court ordered them to

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Two brothers who say police unlawfully seized more than $190,000 from them during a traffic stop had been under surveillance and were suspected of drug-dealing, a lawyer for the city of Aurora said today during a court hearing.

Though neither Jose nor Jesus Martinez is charged with a crime, authorities are seeking forfeiture of $190,040 found in Jesus' truck when he was stopped by an Aurora police officer on Oct. 18.

A Kane County judge ordered the money returned, but the city has refused.

The Aurora residents claim the money was family savings earned from a remodeling business. But during the hearing, an attorney disclosed reports from an Illinois State Police drug task force saying police had received court permission to tap the brothers' phones on the suspicion they were involved in drug trafficking.

Chicago attorney John Murphey, who is representing Aurora, said the city had not been at liberty to discuss the case until today.

"We were constrained by a live, serious investigation," said Murphey, who said he had been informed that the phase of the investigation involving the Martinez brothers was over.


Read more

Aurora city officials and cops belong in prison over this.

Land of the free eh? No way.

Yet another shining example of the dangers of police and asset seizure laws.
edit on 9-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Isn't that the definition of "theft"?

I mean, either the cops press drug trafficking charges against the 2 men to justify the confiscation of the $190k in cash, or they return the money.

These 2 men don't need to prove they were innocent, they ARE innocent until proven guilty, and the cops can't prove those 2 men are guilty unless they press charges, take them to court, and the court judges them guilty.

Until then, the cops have no legal authority to have A) taken the money in the first place or B) keep the money indefinitely.

Just as if I take $190k from you, that's a crime because I have no legal authority to do so. Same goes for these cops.
edit on 9-12-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Isn't that the definition of "theft"?

I mean, either the cops press drug trafficking charges against the 2 men to justify the confiscation of the $190k in cash, or they return the money.

These 2 men don't need to prove they were innocent, they ARE innocent until proven guilty, and the cops can't prove those 2 men are guilty unless they press charges, take them to court, and the court judges them guilty.

Until then, the cops have no legal authority to have A) taken the money in the first place or B) keep the money indefinitely.

Just as if I take $190k from you, that's a crime because I have no legal authority to do so. Same goes for these cops.
edit on 9-12-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)


Sadly they will never spend a day in prison getting intimate with bubba.

If there were to happen a few times, cops would think twice about stealing from citizens.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I can see the police departments dilemma.

Have you ever tried to get money back from strippers and prostitutes before!



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Lol they probably were drug trafficking...I mean...who drives around with 190K in your trunk? If it were money from remodeling businesses I'm sure that money wouldn't have been paid in straight up cash and would have gone directly to bank accounts...the cops were just unlucky in their timing in catching them after they had already made the drug deal and already had the money...I wouldn't want to give it back either to be honest because these drug traffickers aren't exactly the fruit of our nation



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


There is no proof they were "drug traffickers" nor were there any charges.

Labeling them as such is purely irresponsible on your part.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Give them back their money!!
I sincerely doubt they came by it legally but unless the police have a case -
It;s not their money.

This is insanity.
Could happen to any one of us for carrying cash.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I think police department can't return $190k because it already been spend in their needs. Rule number one, never carry cash as it's hard to protect your cash when it was stolen by either civilizations or law enforcements. Leave large amount of money in bank is best chance as majority Americans are desperate for funds.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
While I agree this is ridiculous the Aurora p.d. doesn't have it, while I thought they had spent it since Illinois is broke. As it turns out the good ol dept of homeland security seized it. So when it goes back to court they better have co defendants, the City? of Aurora and the US Dept of Homeland Security.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The brothers need to hire a good lawyer and seize the assets of the police department.

They would first have to sue for the money plus the court costs. If they don't get the money back, they can try to legally seize money from the city and/or police department.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I thought the law stated that if you have more than $10k cash on you at any time, it can be confiscated without prove of its legitimacy.

At least thats what I thought.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The trouble with US currency is 90% of the 100s 50s 20s have traces of drugs on them as is ..

As for more than 10k on you I thought it was legal but also not smart!

IF they allow this to stand it is another nail in the coffin of the Former USA .


Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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.


My friends we are seeing the end of our government little by little with out the 4th the others rights will fall just as easy . Where are the strong leaders screaming out against these types of actions . All I hear is whimpers and whines . Or excuses oh they got it from drugs or something Illegal and they are Mexicans .

The 4th never sets a limit on how much you can have on you . It prohibits what Aurora PD did . If the 4th is null and void we really have lost the battle and the war it is over .



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
and america is the best country in the world? when are the stupid going to quit saying this? i guess only when they get screwed over, too. but, at least the wealthy are having a grand old time here, and isn't that the most important thing? the american people should just be happy to live in their presence.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
they spent the money, so now they dont have it to give back, this is why they are stonewalling



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
they spent the money, so now they dont have it to give back, this is why they are stonewalling


Exactly.

The problem could be easily solved by holding the officers personally liable for any funds seized.

Once that occurs, its a pretty safe bet none of them would seize anything, thereby returning the 4th Amendment to all its glory.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


I was about to ask, this case sounded like a massive infringement on the Fourth Amendment. Money has been spent, we know it, they know it...now they're like., What to do now?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
thieving from a thief to prove thieving is wrong makes you a thief ?

reminds me of an other one ,

killing a killer to prove killing is wrong makes you a killer ,

"law and policy" makes no sences, if anything its hypocrisy and backwards "an eye for an eye"



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
if they dont have it all how are they going to give it back; a check that would fail their checks and balances when budget comes?

if anyone was not known to have large amounts of money and was arrested or detained or inspected by a "federal code regulator"/cop wouldnt they also get the same treatment if in fact beyond a reasonable doubt they already proved their innocence.

plus doesnt jealousy play a part in this. if i was a cop who was white racial profiling of who "has the money" would not be a trait that was taught me if i lived in america? beyond just giving the money back the racial profiling will increase either way because of the inflammation pertaining case; regardless of the "facts".



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that cities can be made to pay for wrongful actions by their police departments via court judgments. The most common cases involve police brutality or wrongful death by a police officer, and there is plenty of precedent of that in Illinois. (I'm pretty sure my city is paying a cool million for such a case.) Thus a lawsuit against a police department with enough evidence should be winnable. So if a court says they have to give the money back, then yes, a fine could be levied against the City of Aurora for failure to comply.

Still something in me says that guys carrying around a whole lot of cash like that aren't going to be in the clean. I could agree that they weren't dealing any drugs or associated activity like money laundering, but it is well known that guys doing contract work (as they are claiming) often work for cash only and they could be guilty of tax evasion. If I was working in a local IRS office, I'd put them on record as deserving an audit.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join