If state laws were violated, then the state police should be charged with armed robbery under color of law.
He is lucky he got his money back in a relatively short time frame.
Cash is not a crime, and simply carrying your money in cash does not give law enforcement probable cause to seize it;
~~~
Yes it is.
People don’t understand how government looks at them.
They don’t care if you don’t have means or even motive, NOR EVEN IF YOU COMMITTED A CRIME... they still don’t want you to have the the opportunity.
Cash can’t be readily tracked.
This poses at least two major problems for the government. First of all, you may be buying and selling things without them knowing. This has been a big no-no for the IRS in particular for a very long time.
Secondly, you “could” be buying and selling things that they don’t know about, and In particular illicit goods, although they like knowing everything, not just the potential crimes.
And there-in lies the problem. The not knowing.
If you even just have the opportunity to make transactions off the books, that’s enough of a crime as far as they are concerned. It’s not good enough if you don’t make the transactions, or even if you report them when you do.
All this, of course, only counts for legal US citizens. If you are here illegally, you can do everything you want off the books. In fact, it almost seems to be encouraged.
The IJ they mention is the Institute for Justice. They do great work according to lawyer Steve Lehto.
I Met Everyone From the Institute for Justice!
by Steve Lehto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzpZdS0X8Os&ab_channel=SteveLehto
Another case taken on by the IJ.
Fed. Appeals Court Strikes Law That Forced Publishers to Give Free Books to the Gov’t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlF81a9rtXs&ab_channel=SteveLehto
Lesson to learn; answer only questions directly pertinent to the stop. When they start asking unrelated questions simply state that you decline to answer any further questions.
The officers who pulled him over never alleged he did anything wrong, and Stephen cooperated throughout the ordeal. However, using civil forfeiture, the officers were able to detain Stephen for more than an hour and take his life savings from him.
After answering the stop related questions ask if your are being arrested. When they say no, state that you would like to leave as you have pressing business elsewhere.
The police may not detain you without cause. The longer you are in contact with the police the greater chance that they can manufacture a reason to arrest you.
Good on this guy for continuing the fight. Too many would give up as long as they got their own money back. A correct verdict would protect the rest of us from such criminal acts.
> Stephen cooperated throughout the ordeal <
Good people want to cooperate with the police. And that often gets them into trouble.
Officer (smiling): Do you mind if we do a quick search of your car? You don’t have any bazookas in there, do you?
Driver: Well, okay.
I don’t know if that happened here. But in general a better answer is:
Driver: With all due respect officer, I do not consent to any searches.
Donald Trump, being himself a victim of so-called law enforcement, is maybe the right person to be President at this time.
While most people on this site know that I do not at all like Trump’s or Trump’s fans dismissing or even demeaning our veterans, I also don’t like “country club Republicans.” They have no first-hand knowledge of the challenges ordinary men and women face, either in terms of financial hardships, wondering how their medical bills will be covered, whether Social Security be there for them, or how they navigate the legal system if they or somebody in their family should become a target of law enforcement.
a true hero to pursue this to the bitter end even after he got his money back!
It would be helpful to have more details about the arrest.
I am thinking very few people in Nevada have been stripped of their life savings during a routine traffic stop?
Semper Fi, little cousin!
The entire idea of civil forfeiture is anathema to individual liberties. If someone was involved in a crime and made money from it, then ONLY IF YOU PROVE THAT should the money (or other assets) resulting from the crime(s) in question be subject to forfeiture. Until then, charging an (inanimate) asset with a crime is just another way to steal money from ordinary citizens without due process.
Have you ever had a pissed-off Marine on your ass? Is that a threat? Oh yeah.
It is quite likely that the driver gave the officers permission to search his vehicle, or answered questions that he didn't need to.
No “civil asset forfeiture” should be able to be executed without a court hearing where it is the civil authority who must prove the assets to be seized are illegal ill gotten gains, and without such proof no forfeiture permitted.
Brought to you by the idiots supporting the “war on (some) drugs”.
Y’all keep backing the blue!
Don’t steal! The government hates competition!