for those who ...
Posted on 09/16/2014 10:10:36 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
“Not that I think that is right, but you gotta ask yourself how many people who are NOT drug dealers carry large sums of cash. And what are the odds of them getting pulled over AND SEARCHED on one of these roads.”
Well, my point is that it isn’t right, and it isn’t even legally proper for police to performing most of those searches in the first place. It doesn’t matter if the route is commonly used by drug dealers, unless they have a reasonable suspicion, specifically pertaining to you, that you are a drug dealer, then they have no authority to search, and so they should never find the cash in the first place.
The problem is that police are well aware that if they can trick or intimidate someone into giving consent, then it doesn’t matter whether the search would otherwise be illegal. So, they’ve developed an artform of getting citizens to waive their rights, instead of simply performing their duties within the bounds of the law. That’s very problematic for various reasons, for example, once they get into that mentality, they will be more likely to try to bend the rules in all sorts of other ways, as they are already in the habit of justifying such things to themselves as a means to “get the job done”.
“IOW, even these “unfair” stories we hear about may not be all that unfair. I like to say that they got Al Capone on tax evasion. What if the parents in the op were CLEARLY part of the drug thing but the cops could not prove it?”
Well, if they couldn’t prove it, then they should get more evidence, or leave the parents alone. The job of the police is not to deliver justice, it is to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. If their investigation doesn’t yield evidence, then they should act appropriately and treat the people as innocent, not as criminals.
Are you suggesting that if the cops can't prove guilt and get a conviction by a jury in court they should be able to administer "Justice" on their own?
Are you suggesting that if the cops can’t prove guilt and get a conviction by a jury in court they should be able to administer “Justice” on their own?
This is the principle story on which the OP story was written
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2
I ‘thought’ it sounded pretty familiar (right down to copying the first passage). The WP article has much better background.
Here’s the entire pimping-free article:
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 the reading of these meaningless tea leaves that the officer will ask permission to search the vehicle. A legal refusal by the driver may cause drug sniffing dogs to be summoned, a thoroughly illegal use of the driver’s time as has already been determined by the Supreme Court. But how many Americans will be aware of such legal decisions guaranteeing their rights?
And now comes the fun part. Drivers across the nation have been found in possession of thousands of dollars in cash. It’s their own money, lawfully acquired, but police immediately conclude that it represents the ill-gotten gains of a drug sale. The money is confiscated on the spot and the driver must now prove that the cash was acquired in a legal manner should he ever wish to enjoy its return.
Unfortunately, given the cost of hiring attorneys to fight Big Brother, over 60% of law abiding people who are the VICTIMS of a crime committed by the police, will never retrieve their money. And for those who choose to fight, it is usually mandatory that they sign away their right to sue!
During the rest of the week, Coach is Right will relate the stories of honest citizens who have been robbed by the people they look to for protection while providing some of the knowledge necessary to avoid becoming a victim.
You would think this is Mexico
All you have to do is carry an open bag of doggie jerky treats in your car, and if the cop gets the dog to alert then you pull out the open bag of jerky treats and ask if that was what the dog smelled?
-PJ
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.