Posted on 05/09/2015 11:23:41 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments
Of course, DEA agents would never inspect such a container, nor have collections of them at the station to use in officer training. Might work to keep your cash from being stolen by a thief without a badge though, but again doubtful, as they too have the same cans holding their drug stashes.
I’ll tell you what did it but don’t tell anybody.
Barry wants to turn our police into a local army controlled by DC and that is so unconstitutional it will make your head spin.
I get a bit amped up with these cop stories. It’s all to fulfill an agenda eroding states rights.
The IRS steals money from me every week.
One thing I learned a long time ago growing up in NYC is that there is not much difference between the cops and the criminals.
Both groups are targeting you and to survive you have to make yourself scarce and keep out of dangerous situations.
Anybody stupid enough to get on a train with 16K in cash without a gun isprobably going to be sorry they did.
Sometimes people think I'm pro-criminal because of that.
I'm not. I want bad guys in prison or dead.
I just really want the Feds to get back in the Constitutional box they came it, and put a lot of emphasis on that.
/johnny
At least with a criminal you can shoot them in self defense with moderate chance of not being prosecuted but with the law, not so much...............
“These DEA crooks at least were racist enough to target the black guy and steal some drug money for themselves, instead of targeting a tourist or something.”
So can I count you on the list of folks who think Pamela Geller “violated” the First Amendment? Or is the Constitition a “living document” for you? You must have a sore a$$ siting up there on that fence!
Is that a legal requirement? Being or not being armed is irrelevant. Was the man even 21? Why are you searching for facts not in evidence and irrelevant to justify unconstitutional seizure?
Is that a legal requirement? Being or not being armed is irrelevant. Was the man even 21? Why are you searching for facts not in evidence and irrelevant to justify unconstitutional seizure?
Travelers checks no longer exist.
Agreed!
I don’t care if the guy is black, brown, red or purple or if he was just videoed selling a quart of heroin on the courthouse steps! He is entitled to “due process” regarding the money not just some cops “gut instinct”.
In our system that means a judge!
Amen !
The Institute for Justice has been fighting the asset forfeiture problem across the country. In some jurisdictions, police would target out of state cars for search and then seize any money because those people were far less likely to be able to drop everything and come back for court hearings, thus more willing to sign over any cash found in the car. Get arrested for DUI, and they take the car - even if it belongs to someone else. Philadelphia was actually taking homes if one kid sold drugs out of it.
Sources:
Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture
http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4
Homeowners’ Lawsuit Challenges Pa. Practice of Police Asset Seizures
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/15/homeowners-lawsuit-challenges-pa-practice-police-asset-seizures
“An AMERICAN black “rapper” with 16K in cash on him and got it legally?”
When they come for you; you will think differently.
We USED to live in a free country.
This report focuses on what are sometimes referred to as “cold” consent encounters. These can occur in one of two ways:
(1) when an agent approaches an individual based on no particular behavior; or (2) when an agent approaches an individual
based on the officer’s perception that the person is exhibiting characteristics indicative of drug trafficking without the officer
having any independent predicating information. The encounter typically entails the officer asking for consent to speak with
the individual and, if the agent thinks it warranted, to seek consent to search their belongings. These encounters are
considered voluntary because the officer does not seek to require the person to participate in the encounter or submit to a
search based on prior information about the person or their connection to drug trafficking.
When the piece ref'd IJ, I knew it was a decent article and not some HufPo lefty stuff. Though it seems the editors played up the kid's race more than was relevant.
Nothing Constitutional about the seizure, not trying to justify it.
The Constitution has been dead since 1865.
One gang of crooks ripping off another crook on an Amtrak train is all this is.
16,000 in cash is legal in my book but why were they pulled over?
********************
They were “suspicious” , black and white in the same car? That’ll get you pulled over than “driving while black”.
There are no more travelers checks.
However he could have converted into one of those debit cards that one can buy.
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.