Posted on 09/16/2014 10:10:36 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
After 9/11, the federal government “…called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.” But if the new, more aggressive agenda of seeking out suspicious individuals was embraced by officers as part of their interdiction training by the federal government, their policing behavior turned out to be worlds removed from the mundane yet somehow historically reassuring promise to “protect and serve” the American public. For law enforcement officers throughout the nation were eagerly learning and practicing the fine art of “policing for profit,” that is, the barely legal method of confiscating money and assets from generally guileless American citizens taught since childhood that police may be trusted.
Thirty years ago, the Department of Justice created a civil asset forfeiture program known as “Equitable Sharing.” Though originally used for the purpose of separating drug dealers from their assets and cash, since 2001, Equitable Sharing has been employed by the nation’s police to score $2.5 Billion in cash and assets from citizens “who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.” It is a high-dollar confiscation scam which is painfully easy to operate and, to ensure the successful practice of which, law enforcement has been dealt every trump. How can billions be confiscated from law abiding drivers?
Simply pull over a car for any violation, real or imagined. While issuing a warning or a ticket, “study [the driver or passengers] for signs of nervousness, including…clenched jaws or perspiration.” Police are then taught to look for “supposed indicators of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rear view mirrors.” Unbelievable.
It will be after...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Drive an old white car and they will leave you alone.
This pre-dates DHS.
In the 90’s it became such that if one were stopped and the registration of the car had expired, or the driver license had expired, the car could be impounded.
Never seemed right to me. Never knew how it was constitutional.
Now, here in CA, the exception is illegal aliens. They do not need registration or licenses and their cars are not impounded for such infractions.
If one simply remembers that they must refuse all requests by the police, other than those they must adhere to - while always being polite - this will almost certainly not happen to you.
There is an ACLU video on this. One fun part is when the guy is asked to get out of the car, he gets out and locks it, with his passengers inside. The cop does all sorts of “if you were innocent, you’d let me” arguments regarding the guy saying no to his requests.
And this is the hard part: Politely refusing. The only thing I’ll do is answer simple questions. If they get complicated I let them know I really don’t have time for it - nicely - and since I’ve done nothing wrong I’d really like to get where I’m going before I’m late.
Cut them some slack! How else can they afford to fill up the tanks on their MRAPs?
Oh.
I see now.
You are concerned about green being found in the car.
Fixed it. If it had ever really been about drug dealers, they'd have brought criminal charges and used criminal forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is about getting your stuff - drugs was a con job lapped up by low-information voters (including some self-professed "conservatives").
I guess the founding fathers must have been a bunch of potheads too, what with writing that pesky 4th Amendment, eh?
Really ... what did they have to hide?
If someone takes your stuff take their stuff.
All the cops have to do to get probable cause to tear apart your vehicle w/o your permission is get their dog to come up and bark at your car. The cop will say that the dog is reacting to drugs even if the cop has to pull on the leash or pull out a tasty treat.
All they have to do to request a K9 check is to state on the report that you looked nervous and your car smelled like drugs. If you were wearing sunglasses and had an air freshener, even better.
All they need to do to keep your cash is test it for minute traces of cocaine or cannabis. You’re a drug dealer until proven otherwise.
If you must transport physical stores of value, consider rare stamps, rare documents, baseball cards, small antiques etc. (but not one of a kind items). Otherwise, you could melt gold into a common object or structural component and paint it or re-form some platinum (it looks like stainless steel)
Using secret compartments in vehicles is still legal in most states, but some like Ohio have made it illegal. Cops also might even use ultrasound to look for modified compartments.
And there is a confused contingent on FR who fully support these drug forfeiture laws.
The ostensible point of your comment is irrational and non-sequitar, but that’s to be expected.
As for your comment about the founding fathers and pot.
Back in the day me and my pothead buddies fully believed that. They all grew hemp. I remember one stoner buddy saying how Washington wrote in his journal how he much prefers a bowl of hemp over a bowl of tobacco in the evening.
The founders were said to separate the male plants from the female plants which is not necessary for rope-making purposes. The only purpose is to produce sinsemilla (seedless) which makes a better smoking getting-high weed.
Yes, those were the things pot heads believed and were told by the hippie leftists.
The pot head propaganda is still going strong thirty years on.
Actually it’s about 50 years on, now. It was thirty years ago I came across it.
It’s worked. Obama is a direct consequence of this hippie leftist propaganda that the libertarians, among others, carry on today.
It's for the children.
You are concerned about green being found in the car.
They have been doing this for years.
“The ostensible point of your comment is irrational and non-sequitar, but that’s to be expected.”
If it was irrational and non sequiter, you could demonstrate that, instead of going off reminiscing about stupid things you believed as a youth. As it stands, you’ve just made an unsubstantiated statement that doesn’t equate to a rebuttal.
That may be tempting, but if you take a cop’s stuff, you go to jail. If he “confiscates” your stuff, he still walks free.
Yeah, I get all that. But the dog stuff has been shut down by the SCOTUS. That was one of the points of the article. Fact is, if they just don’t care they can pretty much do whatever they want. Just like any criminal.
The actions I and others mention only work with cops who at least see themselves as somewhat trying to be good cops. You can “intimidate” them into doing the right thing just like they can intimidate you into giving up your rights.
All bets are off with truly bad guys that just happen to wear badges.
And one of the secrets to transporting things of value beyond what you gave is to just not transport all that much at any one time. Sad that it’s come to that, but it has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.