That method works. She WAS a witch -- look at her nose! Look at her hat!
Posted on 09/28/2006 5:44:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper
Two men traveling south on Interstate 85 southwest of Lexington Tuesday told Davidson County sheriff's deputies that the $88,000 in cash they had hidden in their car was to buy a house in Atlanta.
Officers with the sheriff office's Interstate Criminal Enforcement unit didn't believe the story after a drug-sniffing dog found a strong odor of narcotics inside the car.
No drugs were found, and the two men weren't charged with a crime, but officers did keep the money, citing a federal drug assets seizure and forfeiture law.
Deputies first stopped the car for following too closely to another vehicle, said Davidson County Sheriff David Grice.
The two men told officers they had flown from Texas to New Jersey and were driving south to Atlanta to buy a house with the money, Grice said.
Federal investigators arrived and took the cash in order to make a case in federal court that the money would fall under federal forfeiture laws.
If a federal judge agrees with investigators, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office would receive 75 percent ($66,000) of the confiscated money.
"It takes about a year for the money to come back to the county," Grice said.
The money then would make its way into the sheriff's office general fund, where it could only be used for enhancement purposes, such as new equipment or additional training.
Grice said as a general rule the sheriff's office cannot count on forfeiture money, noting the money isn't a sure thing and can fluctuate from year to year.
But the Davidson County Sheriff's Office has had positive results in the past after bringing in $1.6 million in 2005 and $1.4 million in 2004.
This year Grice said officers have brought in about $400,000.
"It allows us to buy equipment without using taxpayers' money," Grice said.
Replacing older vehicles, installing newer radios in patrol cars and installing a new camera system in the jail were all paid for by drug forfeiture money, Grice said.
Tell me...under CAFRA 2000, is it not the CLAIMANT's burden to recover his assets?
Don't claim things are all solved, just because things are "changed"...
Doesn't have to be "substantial" either... look at the EZPass-only exits now being constructed on some Interstate highways, so the note on our currency "[T]his note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" is meaningless...you must get a device that allows the government to track your movements, if you wish to use certain public roadways.
CAFRA is only federal. Each state has their own civil asset forfeiture laws. IIRC, most are worse than CAFRA.
"The government would have to file what within 90 days, charges aginst the person? Can they seize and hold on to the money during that 90 day period?"
Yes and yes. But if they seized a car or a boat or a home, and the person could show a compelling need for that seized asset (ie., to earn an income), the court may temporarily release the asset until the case is resolved. (I think that's new with CAFRA 2000.)
Cash? I don't think they'd release that.
It's not his burden anymore. It used to be.
Under CAFRA 2000, the government must establish, by preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture. The claimant merely testifies as to why the asset is his.
ping
Nothing new here folks. -- Governments have been prohibiting 'evil objects' since biblical times, -- they then use the decree as an excuse to search & seize any asset even remotely connected to the 'contraband'..
Statists/communitarian's defend the practice as a needed exercise in socialistic morality.
Rational men see it as a forerunner to revolution.
Powerful arguments against 'majority rule' and a power to prohibit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1721926/posts
There, fixed it. Doesn't matter a lot WHAT the source of the money is, until or unless they are CONVICTED IN OPEN COURT OF AN ACTUAL CRIME. Until then, the thieves who stole the money should be either dead or in jail... dead as in shot or otherwise killed during the commission of a FELONY, that is, an armed robbery.
Slavery has been around since biblical times and before. STILL doesn't make it right. But ANYTHING that increases government power is jake with you, especially if it furthers your precious war on some drugs. Let's face it, bobby, you are an authoritarian control freakazoid with a huge addiction to power over other folks' lives and property. An addiction, I might add, which WILL be curbed one sweet day.
Utter tyrannical BS. So much for the Fourth Amendment. Police apparently have an open license to steal, even in the absence of any evidence of a criminal act.
This is a clear abuse of power and violation of the Constitution which the Founding Fathers would be appalled at...
WHERE'S THE DUE PROCESS?
What most people think that is has long since disappeared.
The asset is seized and held until the case goes in front of a judge where due process is applied. If the government (not the owner) cannot make a case for forfeiture, the asset is returned and all owner expenses paid.
What's the big deal? Citizens are seized and held in jail until their case goes to trial. And that's OK with you.
But if the government seizes property? Well, that's outrageous! This practice must stop! That's where you draw the line, huh?
So if a bank is robbed of $215,000 and I have $215,000 in my trunk that I can't explain, I get to keep it if the cops can't prove I robbed the bank?
Wow! This opens up many possibilities for avoiding arrest.
If only there were some sort of legal procedure to determine whether or not someone was a criminal. We could call it a "trial". But never mind, that's crazy talk. Much better to rely on scientific methods such whether a dog barks at them or whether they weigh more than a duck.
That method works. She WAS a witch -- look at her nose! Look at her hat!
Yeah. And we'll have a judge. We'll call him "Ito".
Then we'll know for certain whether or not someone was a criminal.
Posters are acting as though this is some recent government ploy to infringe upon our liberties.
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.