It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Video: Biggest Police State Scam Ever: "Civil Asset Forfeiture"

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra


I am glad you are an honest and intelligent law officer. I have one like you as a neighbor. Unfortunately not everyone in Law enforcement understands there are unconstitutional laws, regs and EOs. That is why there is the term "Color of the Law" (It is also the title of a book, I gave to my spouse for Christmas)

As far as Civil Asset Forfeiture goes. We have a woman in the neighborhood who made a very nice living using Civil Asset Forfeiture. She drove around the area and photographed older hard keeping animals, showed the picture to her friend the judge and then confiscated ALL the animals on the property.

As soon as she had the animals loaded she head out of state and sold them at auction. I was warned about her as soon as I moved into the area by several different horsemen. Because of that B@%$ch I had to sell my favorite old mare (age 29) who I had since she was 4 months old.

Yes she does exist and drives around with a sign on her car reading ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE She even went as far as trespassing on my neighbor's property. To get photos, she walked over a 1/2 mile on to the property to where he had a newly purchased stallion hidden in the woods. The animal was on the thin side as expected of an older stallion during mating season. Luckily Terry is related to everyone in the county including the judge so she didn't get his animals.

I have high fences and locked gates to keep her out.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

In this case, seizure laws are spelled out by US Code.

Yes the law I quoted was U.S. Code according to Cornell. FEAR also lists laws by state. Actually they have a really nice setup for looking up ANY LAW
So it is a nice resource to bookmark for future reference since it is a quick tie in to various references.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

I think many in these forums would disagree with your assesment of me lol.

And in that case she needs to be charged.. The judge needs to be removed, disbarred and charged.

I understand the argument people are making in these threads, but at times its a complete reversal in argument. 99 percent of the time threads in these forums people rail against government overeaching, illegal laws etc etc.

In threads like this we seem to have a reversal, where criminal wrongdoing is being presented and then supported by those who have issues with the law by citing the law and executive orders.

I dunno.. I think the Government does go to far at times with regards to placing themselves into what should be a personal or local/county/state manner. I think Congress concentrates on the wrong issues.. Instead of debt and spending, securing the borders etc they want to deal with topics that are not pressing. Personally I could care less if a member of Congress thinks a college team in their state is doing such a good job they pass a proclamation congratulating them.

I would rather they spend time dealing with real problems..

edit on 10-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

I try to use offical websites or university websites (Cornell / WestLaw) when citing law. They have, in my opinion, a better track record of actually having the updated law, in addition to any case law that might reshape the intent of the law itself. As far as State laws go, I just link to their government website, hit the legislative section and almost all states have a statute search function. Since its government its the most up to date listing one can find.

Plus, I have seen some websites that have conviently left out a section of law, thereby changing the entire intent of it. A perfect example is the issue with Pvt. Manning. His lawyer posted one of the rules from the military that talks about being required to charge an individual within 120 days or they have to let him go.

They conviently left out section C of that code which allows the presiding authority (judge) to allow extensions, and thos extensions are required to be recognized as valid. Leaving that section out supported the lawyers argument on his clients behalf, ,which is what he is supposed to do.

However leaving that section out also gave ammunition to people who do not take the time to understand laws, criminal procedures, court procedures, rules of evidence procedures. They jumped on that, and we see stories everywhere about how "deplorable" Pvt. Mannings conditions are in prison.

Its done in an effort to affect / sway public opinion which in my opinion is the problem.

As I said earlier, the requirement is tried in a court of law, and not in the court of public opinion.
edit on 10-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Advantage

My involvement is Law Enforcement for those setups. I am not going to go into detail for obvious reason, but the confiscation of personal food storage was nowhere in any of my briefings or the information I have access to, including the disaster plans.

Also we saw how well it worked out for New Orleans Police when they decided to confiscate personal firearms from people. They, rightfully so, had their asses handed to them by FEderal Courts, which said it was illegal to do that even though a state of emergency existed.

New Orleans is different. I was born and raised there. The laws simply arent the same. Our parishes and things are ran totally different than your counties and cities. Many of our laws were still french laws.. and nowhere else in the country could you find them. In NO the shooting wasnt the problem. There were NO bands of roving armed maniacs. They did not need to confiscate..there was no threat. Only displaced hungry people living in a cesspool of contaminated flooded water. The places that were full of illegal firearms was destroyed by the levy break in St. Bernards Parish... the projects.

Just as an aside that should make every decent LE person sick to their stomachs..

I live in Illinois now. Can you tell me how constitutional it is or how normal it is to have occupancy permits here? FOID cards and ammo databases to see what ammo you are buying and how much? New Orleans did not have this. DId you know that with an occupancy permit the police need NO probable cause of anything other checking to see if you have the permit available to show them and also show them the people in your home? I assume you do not deal with this in your LE career. I assume you do not demand entry into a citizens home with no reason other than to check a piece of paper and lookie loo in a private residence. If we have ANYONE at our house.. even family visiting.. for more than a week, they have to be added to the occupancy permit.

If this can happen here it can happen where you are.. and no one even tries to buck the system concerning it. Theyre completely docile. The cops who arent comfortable in doing these things can either leave.. or try what they can to not do these things. If you have any problem with believing this is true.. look it up.. I live it every day with my little piece of paper waiting for a knock on the door for the police to make sure I am approved legally to live in the home I pay for and own. I have a nice picture ID to prove I am the govt approved person who owns an old shotgun shoved in a closet. I also have a wheel sticker on my car that has to be visible at all times to prove to the police that I can drive my car on my city streets because I live here. I paid a special fee/tax to get this nice sticker. Ia m double taxed on road maintenance which is also illegal concerning this sticker, but if I dont have it I am breaking the law, can be fined and/or arrested.

apply what I live with to confiscation.. break a "law" thats unconstitutional and you can have things unconstitutionally confiscated. If you are in possession of anyting from heart or blood pressure medication to vicodin prescribed by a Dr on your person or in your vehicle without the RX or original bottle it came in so they can call the Dr and check it out.. you get arrested for possessing drugs. Have over a few and you get arrested for having drugs with the intent to distribute. They confiscate your vehicle.

We have "the exterminator".. yeah, the mayor actually named that.. its an armored car that the police park in "questionable" areas that is a manned station with surveillance cameras on it that watch people in their own yards and homes... and the police can question the people and use that occupancy permit to walk in the homes. ALready a few legal issues with it.. and none going anywhere. The papers praise the good ol "exterminator" in our neighborhoods keeping us safe.Add to that our signs.. this is a hoot.. they place signs.. HUGE ones that say "This is a drug house. Stay away. Enter at your own risk" if a person at the house was selling or in possession of drugs.... including apartment buildings.

For all of this the ONLY people paying for this BS are us normal law abiding citizens. Try selling a house with the exterminator and a drug house sign in your neighborhood. We have citizen cops which would be hilarious if it wasnt so dangerous. They even give them little radios and such...and a nice magnetic sticker for their car to proclaim to everyone that they are special.. they are a cop wanna be.
Theyve caused more headaches for LE here than help to be honest! I told the Chief he was making a HUGE mistake.. but they did it anyway. He's a good guy. Young and driven. Too bad he doesnt get more support. He now has communtiy cops.. they get out and get to know the people. I understand his idea.. but we cant keep the young cops away from the girls and the old ones from siting in QT 24/7~! AT least once a week, sometimes more we have road blocks. Not in high crime areas.. but all over. You must show your papers as well as everyone in the car and tell them where you are going. They look in and search the car... I questioned the legality of it at a counsel meeting, but was shot down and told that if you stop at the road block you will be searched.. and if you try to circumvent the road block, youre arrested. I dont recall what the loop or law was.. but yes, you can be searched with no cause other than stopping at the road block... something about suspicious behavior or some nonsense. I dont know about you, but I get pretty "suspicious" acting when Ive been waiting in a car with several kids for an hour to get through a stupid road block with my car running with gas at over 3 bucks a gallon here....
The cops here know me already.. I never get hassled, but is it normal that you have to be on the person known and approved of list to not be hassled in a med size town in Southern Illinois??

Oh and you should find this amusing since you are a LEO.. we have NO ONE higher than our police chief.. the chief answers directly to our mayor.. who is a complete moron with NO law enforcement background.

all of this and NO let up in our crime here. In fact, its gotten worse in the last year alone and the only people its annoying or trampling on are the normal folks here. Ive lived all over the US and lived in.. not visited.. other countries. Ive NEVER been to a place quite like this.. in the heartland of the US no less

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

...I dunno.. I think the Government does go to far at times with regards to placing themselves into what should be a personal or local/county/state manner. I think Congress concentrates on the wrong issues.. Instead of debt and spending, securing the borders etc they want to deal with topics that are not pressing....

On that we certainly agree.

Unfortunately we have a network of interlocking money and power so it is hard for the little guy to actually get the justice he is entitled to. For example another neighbor, a forester stumbled across a big "herbal drug" patch. He tried to get the local law enforcement involved and instead got harassed - multiple speeding tickets =>loss of license...

He finally called in the Big Guns, the Feds. I know this is true because the raid took place a quarter mile from me. - Helicopters, swat teams etc all on a little back country dirt road is hard to miss.

My other neighbor the cop works the next county over and though he did not say anything out right he implied the law here in my county is very crooked. We have at least three other drug pushers that we both know of on a road 6 miles long and most is timber not houses. Heck I have stumbled over at least three drug transactions, one carried out on my property!

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Advantage

I have had a few conversations with people who work for the Hospitals and we have talked about Mass Disaster and the Feds. I always found their arguments funny since they think their facility will be under their control. Ive tried to point out to them that their own disaster plans, the ones they have signed off on, move authority to a centralized location who can move staffing around as needed based on whats going on without their permission.

Its along the same manner for the LEO agencies and how that works as well.. We at least understand all of that, where I think the Hospitals will get a nice shock.

No joke.. they SHOULD already know they can be shipped to another facility on a moments notice as it was never a secret.They also should know they dont have control over triage, medication movement to other facilities and equipment too

I have kids.. we had them later in life.. I dont like the whole go where they send you without question thing.
I started out with the first responder stuff way back due to having an ill child.. required a transplant and on meds to keep her alive. I joined out of selfishness
Id make sure as I could one way or the other.. even if it was losing my own freedom of movement or life.. that she would have access to medications and medical treatment the best way I could in the event of a disaster. This was the only way Id have a shot at it.. and thats not even assured. I figured if I made myself valuable and had access to medical stuff due to my background and my husbands career.. I could make sure she and others that needed it would get it first. That was the polly anna theory anyway! LOL! Then over time Ive discovered that Im also selling my soul.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Bunch of legends in their own minds thinkin' they are the alpha males marking their
"territory"....LEOs are just as bad as doctors...there are more in it for the "money" and less in it
for those they are sworn to protect and serve. Kind of does mess it up for the few, the real, that
are not jaded yet.

Thanks for the post.

LOLOLOLOl... I gurantee you we did not go into law enforcement for money. Is it possible for people to actually do some research in these areas before spouting misinformation and inuendo?

Your personal views are fine, but not always based in fact.

That's all i'm asking, do some research and ask questions before jumping onto the bandwagon.

Heh heh...
Darn skippy Leo...I do tend to have personal views on many things...

Thing is, I've seen a lot of this go on in the small towns I've lived in. Lived across the street from a LEO back east in a small town once, and this guy always seemed to be coming up with money and "goodies" (boats, muscle cars, etc.) Asked him how he could get things like that on what he's being paid...I knew that he wasn't making that much money...he looked at me and winked and said..."sweetie, there are sooo many ways."

Before ya jump on it...nope, it wasn't the police auction, hon. His kids also had some big mouths too.
He wasn't the only one that I've run into over the years. So, as you can see....there may be rules...but those rules will be broken, even by those that know better if they feel it will get them a bigger piece of the pie.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Respectfully... Please provide more info to the stories.. Turning in a drug patch and being harrassed with speeding tickets does not exactly mesh, nor does it really sound related at all, other than he waqs speeding, got caught, and was cited for it.

Personal stories are fine, I just find that people leave key information out, at which pooint to me the story sounds implausible, mainly because the parts that are left our are what define the story and places everything into context.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Bunch of legends in their own minds thinkin' they are the alpha males marking their
"territory"....LEOs are just as bad as doctors...there are more in it for the "money" and less in it
for those they are sworn to protect and serve. Kind of does mess it up for the few, the real, that
are not jaded yet.

Thanks for the post.

LOLOLOLOl... I gurantee you we did not go into law enforcement for money. Is it possible for people to actually do some research in these areas before spouting misinformation and inuendo?

Your personal views are fine, but not always based in fact.

That's all i'm asking, do some research and ask questions before jumping onto the bandwagon.

Heh heh...
Darn skippy Leo...I do tend to have personal views on many things...

Thing is, I've seen a lot of this go on in the small towns I've lived in. Lived across the street from a LEO back east in a small town once, and this guy always seemed to be coming up with money and "goodies" (boats, muscle cars, etc.) Asked him how he could get things like that on what he's being paid...I knew that he wasn't making that much money...he looked at me and winked and said..."sweetie, there are sooo many ways."

Before ya jump on it...nope, it wasn't the police auction, hon. His kids also had some big mouths too.
He wasn't the only one that I've run into over the years. So, as you can see....there may be rules...but those rules will be broken, even by those that know better if they feel it will get them a bigger piece of the pie.

First off, this apple fell far from the tree. Second my dad was best friends with Tommy Cribbs.. a sheriff.. a corrupt one that you can probably google and still not get a real clear idea of what all he has his hands in
Yes, for as long as I can remember Dads cop friends got perks. Its harder these days though versus years ago

From my adult experiences, Ive met more decent LEO than corrupt. Its sure the jerks that take the spotlight though. A lot of them wanted to be cops not for ego or whatever is usually tossed around on here. Theyre just like everyone else.. good guys who want to make a difference. Problem is, the bad stuff is too strong... they cant really stop it from happening, but they can be the good guys themselves and do whats right on an individual basis. They also dont deny there are issues within the department when sitting in your living room gossiping either

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by Holly N.R.A.

My point was to quit painting all LEO's as your neighbor... Assuming we are all corrupt would be no different than me assuming all the people in these forums are paranoid schitzos who are a few treatments behind with the padding in their cells coming off the walls.

@ Advantage about Louisiana

Tell me about it... 50 States in the Union and all but Louisiana use English Common as a start. Why Louisiana kept the Napoleonic code after they were sold to the US is beyond me, but whatever works for them. With that said, the comparison is valid because the collection of firearms was a Federal Law violation, namely the 2nd Amendment as well as a 42 USC issue.

The Supreme Court said no, you cannot go door to door to collect firearms. By extension, namely the firearm being property, which was also covered under the supreme Court RUling since they have to replace or pay those who had their weapon taken, is going to be the case law used if for some dmbass reason someone thinks its a good idea to go onto private proerty and forcibly seize food stores from a law abiding citizen who paid for those items.

Many things the Federal Government has done under the guise of being legal, emergency situation etc etc has been ruled illegal. We can cite a bunch of stuff from just after the civil war, up to Japanese American internment camps, to Katrina.

The Federal Government can make all the declarations of disaster they want, but if the State does not request it, the Feds are SOL, since at that point they are now violating the Constitution and the States rights to run their internal affairs free of outside influence or non requested intervention.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

You hit on something.. the request for FEMA by the state.
As I understand it,and PLEASE tell me if Im wrong because Ive yet to get a decent solid answer... they dont have to request anything in certain circumstances.. and that will involve the governors over the 5 regions. Katrina didnt qualify and I blame mainly Ray chocolate city Nagin and the beast Governor for not having a clue as to how to request federal involvement. ANyway, for the midwest in particular.. I really dont understand it all and I figure it will have to happen for any of us to fully realize just what will take place. I figure no one will think to bring up court cases about seizure and forfeiture if the entire country is bisected by a major quake in the midwest and all commerce/transportation/etc is necessarily stopped or prevented by the disaster.JUnk wil be confiscated or scavenged to support the survivors and personnel.. the BS can be sorted out later. When we saw the maps last year, the projected issues were numerous... I am sure youve seen them if you are in LE. Basically STL is a ruin and any ground transport is absolutely screwed. The possible flooding scenarios after a quake would essentially cut off most of the highways and etc to the south of STL and Lambert airport in STL is ruined. Scott AFB wouldnt fare much better.. and thats in my back yard
For mil transport we need certain runways that are of a certain length.. and its very questionable if they will be operational anywhere even near STL.. specifically if Lambert is compromised. Then you get into the uber disaster scenarios with the quake messing with the great lakes region and dumping that water down the corridor and widening the mississippi.. something I hadnt heard before the last few years. There are supposedly several new faults and things that have recently been thrown into the projections... and I dont quite understand all of that.. but it sounds like a real mess and the variables changed to a great extent with the new USGS data. The infrastructure is completely scary even without a disaster.. with even a moderate quake.. it will really be an issue. An expensive mother of all CF issues...

I live in a century old double brick historic home.. I will probably be dead under the bricks before ever being called to respond anyway.
and a double
the people here REFUSE To take even the basic non-fearmongering steps in disaster preparedness. If its not being handed to them they arent doing it...

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra :

My post was not saying every LEO is "perk" shopping. Only saying that of those I have met, and spoken with most have not been as honest as you claim you and those that you know are.

have a good one...

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by lastrebel
reply to post by bozzchem

You probably wouldnt get a chance too, the 55 yearold (at the time) woman I spoke had 20 cops with machine guns and body armor storm her business, threw her to the ground, putting a gash on her head from the counter she was behind, hand cuffed her while a couple 250 pound men knelt on the 120 pound womans back.

Her crime?

one of her customers had a joint and was pulled over leaving her store, they told him they would drop charges if he "admited" he had got it from her at her business

Isn't that the typical response these days? Beat the hell out of an old lady? Ooooh, reminds me of the state troopers in the gym. I had words with one and words ended that day since he wasn't surrounded by his buddies. Comically enough, he was a K-9 officer who lived in my neighborhood at the time. I don't know why my dog took a huge dump in his yard...but I gave my dog quite a few treats for doing so.

I'm a bit over 230#, taller than most and have better body armor than any SWAT team in my state. If they want to come out and pull their crap at my house, it would be most unfortunate for all involved.

What is so difficult about just leaving people the hell alone???

My mother is in her 60's and should she be treated roughly by anyone regardless of their affiliation with law enforcement.....I have but one word: RUN

edit on 10-1-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:04 PM
Lets just end this arguement once and for all

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.

Seizure without prior warrant is a violation of the Constitution.


thats the bottom line.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

The only time we can seize assets is if its attached to the investigation. For the County Sheriffs Office, since they are responsible solely for civil process within the county, if a civil court case is finished, and the judge issues an award to one party, and the other parrty refuses to pay, the judge will sign off on a court order that allows Deputies or Court Officers (depending on jurisdictions - Court Officers work for the court itself) to go seize property from the person who is not paying.

This property will be auctioned off in order to satisfy the debt. The person whose property has been seazied has legal recourse, and provided they make a daily contact to the entity who seized the items, the agency is unable to auction them.

The other type of forclosure of property for municpal departments is going to be drug related. If it comes down to trafficing (not small personal amounts) any cash attached to the crime as well as property can be seized. Generally if its large enough the investigation will go to the Feds. If a local agency keeps the investigation if it was declined by the feds, any property seizures involved are locked into evidence until the entire case is done, all appeals are done, and only then a judge has to sign off on the property either being destroyed, or used.

If the property seized is going to be used for law enforcement purposes (how some agencies will have seized vehicles that go to the DARE program and want not) there is a pretty strict guideline that must be followed. Some states have laws that require either all seized, or partial amounts seized, to go to the school system.

Law Enforcement cannot just randomly take items from people and sell it. The video is wrong and not showing the entire process involved. Any items legally seized cannot just be taken by the Police and sold or used. They have to go through a process that respects it as evidence, must await for all appeals / court cases to be resolved, in addition to any challenges by people who might be owed money who want to stake a claim.

Please do not beleive everything you see on youtube.

For Federal guidlines, the US Marshall's are responsible for Federal Seziures of Assets
Asset forfeiture program - US Marshal's

Their authority comes from the Criminal Control Acts passed by the FEderal Government in the 1930's. The laws were not touched again until an onmibus bill in 1984, which updated fedral criminal laws, seizure of property, sentencing guidelines etc.

The affected US Code is - Title 18 - US Code

Seziures at the State level are dependant upon the states law, any state court cases that created case law dealing with it, and any Federal appeals rulings that have occured in their respective circuits. I am not going to provide any links since the state level is all over the place depending on state law.

I can tell you that any items sezied by local, county, state or federal officals must be inventoried and securely stored. The owner of the seized property must be given a detailed list of items taken. The value of the items is not based on fair market value, but what it can get at an auction.

There is recourse for citizens at both the FEderal and State level to challenge seizures. If a seizure occurs its either by court order, or by criminal statute, which means a legal reason based on current statutes must exist for the sizure to be valid.

Hope this helps clear some of this up.

I definitely appreciate your thorough explanation of official procedure. It is always nice to have concise terms and definitions instead of supposing this that or the other, so thanks =)

May I respectfully submit this article to contrast official procedure and real world practice.....

(I am in no way implying that you take part in such things as an apparent officer of the law, just saying it does happen)

"Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Today I hold out the olive branch of comity to my libertarian friends. The Institute for Justice has just released a lengthy report on "civil asset forfeiture," the ability of state and federal agencies to seize property used in the commission of a crime even if no one has actually been convicted of a crime, and I recommend reading it. The practice is appalling all by itself, but it's even worse than it sounds:

In most states and under federal law, law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeitures. This incentive has led to concern that civil forfeiture encourages policing for profit, as agencies pursue forfeitures to boost their budgets at the expense of other policing priorities.

These concerns are exacerbated by legal procedures that make civil forfeiture relatively easy for the government and hard for property owners to fight. For example, once law enforcement seizes property, the government must prove it was involved in criminal activity to forfeit or permanently keep it. But in nearly all states and at the federal level, the legal standard of proof the government must meet for civil forfeiture is lower than the strict standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal convictions.

Likewise, many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea it was involved in a crime. However, in most places, owners bear the burden of establishing their innocence. In other words, with civil forfeiture, property owners are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

which quotes heavily from the following pdf.....

From the pdf....

"In March 2007, Camden County, Ga., deputies pulled over Michael Annan, a 43-year-old immi-
grant from Ghana, for speeding on I-95 on his way home from work. After a search, officers found
no evidence of illegal activity but confiscated $43,720 in cash. Annan said the money was his life
savings and that he was afraid to put it into a bank.

A canine search found no trace of drugs and a background check on Annan yielded no drug

Nevertheless, officers kept the money for further investigation and told Annan to call back in
two weeks. Annan says that he did call, multiple times, but made no progress securing his money.
A visit to the county seat in person was unsuccessful—the sheriff was too busy to see him.

Finally, Annan hired a lawyer, who faxed tax and work records to the sheriff’s office proving An-
nan earned his money legitimately. The county did return the $43,720; however, Annan had to pay
$12,000 to his attorney—more than a quarter of his life savings.1

Months after Annan was pulled over, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation began looking into
expenditures by then-Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith, who had helped orchestrate the seizure of
some $20 million over 15 years.

Smith used the forfeiture fund for extravagant purchases with questionable utility for law
enforcement—such as a $90,000 sports car and a $79,000 boat. He also used the fund to retain
a private lawyer, to pay tuition for favored deputies at area colleges and to buy gas for employees’
personal vehicles, among other improprieties.2 Smith further paid jail inmates to work on his own
property, his girlfriend’s and his ex-wife’s.3

Camden County voters unseated Smith, who had been sheriff for 23 years, in July 2008.

Thanks again =)

Oh, and I'm not a libertarian or anything, lol. Seriously. I'm just quoting an article!! I would much rather have used this...

"New York Law School Law Review

...but I don't wanna pay 12.50 for it, lol

edit on 11-1-2011 by ossminid because: multiple corrections, spelling, clarification, silliness
edit on 11-1-2011 by ossminid because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:19 AM
reply to post by ossminid

Good info... Have I ever seized items / cash from a person - Yes

In my opinion if we do our jobs correctly, the argument we make for what we do speaks for itself and will be supported by law. I have had one instance where an item I seized was pulled from evidence and returned to the person. The item was a cell phone and I never did really find out why it was returned, but then again I didnt really care it was returned either, since it was between the suspect, his lawyer, the PA and a judge.

If I concerned myself with the outcomes on the judicial side I would not be able to do my job.

The article about Mr. Annan is intresting to me. A few things stand out that are not answered in the article, and I have yet to find any news accounts or police reports that provide more detail. Specifically Mr. Annan's comment that they searched the engine compartment.

Since this area is not in plain view, nor does it fall under the leap / lunge / within reach exceptions, the only way for the engine to be searched is either by consent, or searched as an incident to arrest. The other problem I have is the manner in which the money was stored. Rolled up in a sock and kept in his overalls.

In order to find that, Mr. Annan would have to be pulled out of the vehicle and frisked / patted down (which can be done for officer safety reasons, but even then a basic traffic stop doesnt generally warrant that unless something else was going on or present at the time of the stop.

Since the money is rolled up, kept in a sock and was in his pocket, the officer who patted / frisked him would have to be able to testify in court that the item he felt was exactly what it was. We are not allowed to manipulate items that we feel when patting someone down.

The siezure of the money, hell the entire incident, doesn't make any sense to me, from the actions of the police to those of the driver. There is a lot of key information that is left out of that article, and absent that information the entire incident looks illegal as hell.

In all of the articles presented, the theme is the improper use of seizure laws, and this is supported by the courts ordering items be returned to the people it was siezed from. My argument in this thread is laws are in place that spell out how siezures work and the manner in which it can be used.

I do want to point out though that there are 2 different siezure areas - Civil and Criminal and both have differing thresholds for siezure. There is also a difference between seizure and forfeited as well.

The other misnomer are those who say there is no legal recourse for those people who had items seized / forfeited. A person does have the ability to fight to regain their items.

I am not saying this does not happen, as is clearly shown by your and others posts. What I am trying to say is there are laws in place that spell out the procedures and criteria for those seizures. The police for profit argument is being painted not with a brush but an industrial spray machine, and is implying that Law Enforcement is nothing but organized thieves in uniform. My other argument is when you do a google search on this topic, all people are going to find are those incidents that made the news, which is to say something occured which was technically illegal.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by Advantage

The Govenor of the affected state must make a disaster delaration and formally request the assistance of FEMA. Absent that request, FEMA does not have any authority with the exception of a Chemical, Biological, Nuclear or Explosion (Oklahoma City Incident - If an affected building within a State is Feeral, then FEMA / US Government will have primary authority over that of the state for the response and investigation - If it involves a Nuclear Power plant then the Fedral government (NRC) can assume command of the facility).

Many people argue FEMA is a shadow Government because of the way they respond and authority they have. FEMA, by federal law is the lead Federal Agency when conducting / coordinating Federal resources/ response to an incident.

FEMA's responsibility is to act as an additional resource to supplement a States response to a disaster. The list is the progression of the FEMA, and in some cases have been repealed / replaced by updated law.

FEMA's Statutory Authority:
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 - PL 93-288
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act - PL 100-707 (1988)
Homeland Security Act of 2002
Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) PL 109-295 (2006)
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act - PL 100-707 as amended 2007

US Code outlining and granting authority of FEMA


To tie this in with the Cops for Profit discussion, we talked about Katrina and the confiscation of guns. This section im linking here will put that argument to rest.


(a) Prohibition on confiscation of firearms

No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—

(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;

(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

Talking about the seizure of private property, both for this thread, as well as our conversaton about taking materials (food).

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 68 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 5158 - Availability of materials

In each case, The Govenor must first declare an emergency or disaster, and then must formally request Federal assistance. Even then in order for Federal Assistance, it must meet criteria in order to activate.

****Back to Seizures now*****

August 2008 - There has been a case brought before the courts, and last I checked was at the Federal Appeals level involving State laws that govern their ability to seize property. The incident described is out of Chicago and dealt with property being seized and the property owners did not have any recourse to contest the seizure.

The suit was brought in the state courts and eventually made its way to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th circuit found in favor of the plantifs, stating Illinois law violated the rights of the property owner, citing the due process clause under the 14th amendment.

One of the lawyers pointed out that this victory might be short lived, since the Supreme Court will most likely not review the findings because right now its only occured in 1 appeals circuit. If anohter circuit has a case that comes forward and thei ruling differes from the 7th, then the Supreme Court will most likely hear it.

Progression of this:
Property Seizure in the War on Drugs

Forfeiture Laws, the War of Drugs, and Alvarez v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit -

A case out of New York City and the 2nd Circuit ruling dealing with the seizure of private property going beyond drug seizures but using drug seizure law to do it. Intrestingly enough the judge who ruled on this is Justice Sonia Sotomayor

United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit -

Hope this info helps explain the mess and that counter to claims some articles make, that the laws are being challeneged in terms of how they are applied, placing a tougher burden of proof on Law Enforcement in order to seize personal properties, limiting those seizures to specific crimes and creating an option for individuals to challenge the seizure of their property.

Again we are not perfect and we make mistakes. However not all Law Enforcement officals do what is described in some of the articles linked in other posts. They are painting it as Law Enforcement out of control across the nation, and this is simply not the case.

The other thing to keep in mind is the articles are based on State laws, which vary from state to state and federal circuit to federal circuit depending on case law.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in