News Flash: "With economic down turn, police turn to stealing people's hard
Fredd, didn't you read the article? There was Probable Cause -- the reaction of
the police dog.Folks, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" only applies to
criminal charges. The only criminal charges are driving an unsafe vehicle
(because of the broken windshield) and driving in an unsafe manner (because of
the lane change not being properly signaled). Thus, the police do not have to
prove that the money came from drug deals because the people arrested are not
being charged with that crime. Thus, once the people in the car, or their
attornies, prove that the money belongs to them, it will be given back to them.
Exactly as the article noted.Recall that the people in the car said
that they were going to donate it to the Catholic Church. I think that an
appropriate resolution to this situation would be for the police to facilitate
that donation by giving the money directly to the Catholic Church on behalf of
the people in the car.
Google the "seizure laws". This has been going on forever. The courts have
upheld it. "They" can take cars and houses and money and property. And keep it.
No arrest or crime is needed.Unfortunately the lefties and Bush
haters have been too busy blithering about how we mistreat and data mine on
non-citizen terrorists, instead of protesting well-established long-time
procedures that are obviously "illegal search and seizure" and can affect any
one of us.
Come on people, this was clearly drug money. Do you really want this money
going back to criminal organizations that participate in murder, robbery,
burgalry, and identity theft?
Under the asset forfeiture law, assets can be charged with a crime. The money
becomes a legal entity like a person, business, corporation, etc. However, only
individuals can be charged with a crime. Therefore, the money is now an
individual in the eyes of the law. So my question is this; can the money apply
for a marriage license? After all, the law sees it as an individual, subject to
all the laws and criminal proceedings. Shouldn't it also have the benefits of
law? Conclusion for those who don't want to think this through:
The asset forfeiture law is stupid, and rife with abuse, and abuse potential.
Having a dog sniff around a car is no more an illegal search than the officer
seeing something through the windows. He didn't open the car and put the dog
inside. The dog walked around outside the car and smelled the odor of drugs,
therefore there was PROBABLE CAUSE for the search, just like if the officer sees
open cans of beer and marijuana joints on the car seat. He didn't need a
warrant in those circumstances to do a more thorough search, any more than he
would need a warrant if the driver were drinking from a can of beer when he
walked up.The money can be held as "evidence," but even if it tested
positive for drug traces, there's no way to prove they did anything wrong, since
most paper money has drug traces on it (yes, even the cash in your wallet). If
they come back with a lawyer, they'll get "their" money back. Then they can (of
course) donate it to that Catholic church that they don't know where it is or
what it's called. But chances are they won't show their faces here again.
If you had $200,000 cash that really belonged to you, wouldn't you have fixed
that broken windshield?Would YOUR money be in little packets (ready
to distribute), drug-soaked?Would YOU know where the church you were
going to donate to, was located -- and wouldn't yOU just send a check to that
church, rather than driving cross-country.A crime is a crime.
You'd all be the first to scream if YOUR KID got mixed up on drugs.....
The law that is being used,is the "Asset Forfeiture"law. Each state along
with the Feds have them. They were intended to impact the drug runners, etc.However, these laws have been increasingly used to fund local government and
political cronies. Texas is notorious for stopping people over nothing, and
taking items, that have no bearing as to drugs, thenthe person is sent off
without charges, knowing thatthey will not spend money on a lawyer to get
back a radio, tools ,etc. The corruption of the police has become an old story,
as they justify robbing in the name of law and justice.
This is a sad situation of invasion of privacy. There are a lot of paranoid
people out there right now that are ripping their money out of the financial
instutions and stuffing in safes and under mattresses. Are they going to have
the dogs sniff out all of those homes too?
First an illegal search, then illegal seizure. Have these cops never heard of
the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? "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...."Sure, it might be drug money... but first the police need
probable cause and a warrant to search them, and then they need reason to
believe that the money is drug money before they can confiscate it. Just
because the people won't/can't tell the cops why they DO have it doesn't mean
that the cops can take it assuming they have it illegally. And to
top it all off, what is this bull about "They can come back with their attorney
and give a legitimate reason for the money if they want it back?" People are
presumed innocent, they don't have to prove that they have a legitimate reason
for having the money, the police have to prove that they DON'T!
While I concede it's 99.9% drug money, the charges of a lane violation and
cracked windshield do sound trumped up. And for the officer to say he doesn't
need a warrant or probable cause to have a drug dog sniff the car sounds bogus
to me. Fundamentally it just doesn't seem right you can be pulled over and
released with two minor trumped up traffic charges yet your property is
confiscated. Utahns worry about slippery slopes a lot, well here's a pretty
I admit the circumstances are suspicious. But that isn't enough to seize
$200,000 from someone. There needs to be more evidence than this before the cops
can just take your money.
How often do you drive around with $200,000 in your trunk? If you want to
donate that, do it with a cashiers check from a bank, alot safer, and easier to
claim on your taxes.
OK, folks. It's real world time. It was drug money going back to a higher-up
in the trafficking organization in California. With probable cause the proceeds
of drug trafficking can be seized by law enforcement. As the story mentioned,
the person has legal recourse to try to recover it, but most traffickers are
very happy to be released. They won't be seen again until the next time they
get caught, that is, if they survive the street justice imposed on those who
lose the money, steal the dope, etc.
I souds to me like Tank did a very good job, and he must be a well trained dog.
Come on people, They are from South Dakota, you and I both know the only things
going on in South Dakota are drugs and biker rallies and since it isn't August I
think it is safe to assume it involves drugs.
It's scary to know that the police can take your money just because you "act
suspiciously" - whatever that means.So the money "smelled like
drugs"? Unless they can find drugs actually on the money (even microscopic
amounts), that means nothing. My guess is that the police dog is so used to
smelling money whenever it finds drugs (it's rare to find drugs without finding
any money) that when it smelled the money in the trunk, since there was so much
of it, that was enough to get it barking.Unless drugs are found on
these people's money - GIVE IT BACK. Simply having a lot of cash on you isn't a
Another crushing blow to the constitution. There is no reason to explain why a
person has cash. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.
It is called "filling a budget gap".
Cops and courts in Utah are thiefs..give yhem back their money, you have no
proof of wrong doing
SO SINCE WHEN WAS IT ILLEGAL TO POSSES MONEY? THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WASTING
OUR TAXES TO HIRE POLICE TO WASTE TIME HARASSING INNOCENT PEOPL WHILE CHILD
MOLESTERS CONTINUE TO WALK THE STREETS!
Uhm? Since when can the cops just take your money from you and hold it because
it's "suspicious"? Without a related charge, that money isn't evidence. Just
another slip down the ladder of due process.