Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deputies seize $88,000 in cash in traffic stop
Lexington Dispatch ^ | 9/27/06 | SEAN JAREM

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.


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: armedrobbers; armedrobbery; constitutionlist; donutwatch; drugmoney; govwatch; highwayrobbery; jackbootedthugs; jbt; legalizedtheft; leosgonewild; libertarians; warondrugs; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: jan in Colorado
I understand people being upset about this...but I sure hope you aren't saying this in ANY way justifies shooting a police officer.

Should all armed robbers have such protection and sympathy?

61 posted on 10/17/2006 4:10:43 PM PDT by Sloth ('It Takes A Village' is problematic when you're raising your child in Sodom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Maybe. You can't really prove you were going to do something you never actually did."

They were going to buy a house. Fine. Which one?

Whatever. It's a moot point. An update to the story confirms they were drug dealers. Now the asset forfeiture will be criminal, not civil.

You are so naive, it's embarrassing.

62 posted on 10/17/2006 4:11:24 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You are so naive, it's embarrassing.

Yeah. I'm so naive I can't figure out that the bureaucrats can get infomation about your financial affairs from your bank on demand that they can't get from your personal records without a warrant. You'd want their money taken even if they were buying a house, because it was cash.

63 posted on 10/17/2006 5:32:53 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Hear. Hear!!


64 posted on 10/17/2006 6:39:20 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
An update to the story confirms they were drug dealers. Now the asset forfeiture will be criminal, not civil.

As I read it, it confirms they are being charged, not convicted, of intending to be drug dealers.

65 posted on 10/17/2006 11:33:51 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender

Sure is convenient (for the cops, that is). Steal $88,000.00, then get them indicted... Whether or not they were actually drug dealers the timing is just too convenient. So-called "asset forfeiture" is an abomination. If the government MUST steal someone's stuff, at least convict that person of an ACTUAL crime FIRST.


66 posted on 10/17/2006 11:43:24 PM PDT by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; All

http://www.etext.org/CuD/Papers/presumed


67 posted on 10/18/2006 12:13:18 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
"As I read it, it confirms they are being charged, not convicted, of intending to be drug dealers."

True. And as I read it, it confirms that the government intends to keep their drug money.

68 posted on 10/18/2006 4:01:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

That's a 1991 article. CAFRA 2000 changed much of federal asset forfeiture laws.


69 posted on 10/18/2006 4:08:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

No drugs were found, and the two men weren't charged with a crime, but officers did keep the money.


This is sometimes called grand theft and at other times armed robbery.

Because the "officers" had guns, I'd say this was armed robbery.


70 posted on 10/18/2006 4:09:49 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (DeWine ranked as one of the ten worst border security politicians - Human Events)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I'm so naive I can't figure out that the bureaucrats can get infomation about your financial affairs from your bank on demand that they can't get from your personal records without a warrant."

Huh? These drug dealers had $88,000 of drug money hidden in their car, not in their bank.

71 posted on 10/18/2006 4:11:25 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"If the government MUST steal someone's stuff, at least convict that person of an ACTUAL crime FIRST."

Civil asset forfeiture has been around since biblical times. This is nothing new.

72 posted on 10/18/2006 4:13:54 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver

Yep.


73 posted on 10/18/2006 4:17:44 AM PDT by sauropod ("Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." - Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Whether you "think" they are criminals is NOT the standard.

I read about a guy who had about 20K in cash confiscated at the Atlanta airport. He had purchesed a one way ticket to New Orleans in cash and this alerted the "authorities."

Sounds criminal, right?

Well, it turned out the guy was a dealer of plants and trees, and he was on his way to Louisiana to buy a bunch of landscaping, and bring it back in a rented Ryder truck.

As far as I know he never got his money back.


74 posted on 10/18/2006 4:22:23 AM PDT by ivy (Ivy's ex bf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Davidson County, NC is notorious for using I-85 as a hunting ground for finding drugs and "drug" money. I was a lot worse under Sheriff Hege, but he's toast now. At times there is a flying squadron of 3 or 4 unmarked sheriff's vehicles prowling and profiling cars with out-of-state plates. There's been many times when I've passed through there and seen entire families sitting on guard rail while a sheriff's deputy empties the contents of their car onto the shoulder of the highway. (and he's not changing the tire either)


75 posted on 10/18/2006 4:35:17 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ivy
"In one highly publicized case that occurred in 1991, federal authorities at the Nashville airport took more than $9,000 in cash from Willie Jones, a black landscaper who was flying to Houston in order to purchase shrubs. According to the police, that money could have been used to purchase drugs. After spending thousands of dollars and two years on the case, the landscaper was able to convince the courts to return most of the seized cash."

In 2000, Congress passed CAFRA, which substantially changed the federal asset forfeiture laws. The government would have to file within 90 days, and the government now has the burden of proof (not the defendant). Also, Willie would have received his cash back, plus interest, and the federal government would have been responsible for his legal expenses.

The new laws corrected much of the past abuses. However, if you want to focus on these old stories, fine. When you're done, then we can talk about the history of slavery in the United States too.

76 posted on 10/18/2006 4:38:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
No government official including police officers should be able to confiscate my money or anyone else's based on a suggested assumption. I should be allowed to carry 10 dollars, 1000 dollars, 10000 dollars, or even a hundred thousand without fear the government will seize it to buy equipment. I will take the risk of being robbed by a criminal, but the criminal shouldn't be the police. If there were no drugs, imo no crime. I shouldn't need to tell anyone what I intend to do with my money.
77 posted on 10/18/2006 4:49:05 AM PDT by commonguymd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Huh? These drug dealers had $88,000 of drug money hidden in their car, not in their bank.

They had $88,000 in cash. At the time it was seized it was unknown and irrelevant whether they were "drug dealers" or if this was "drug money". It was seized because it was "too much cash".

It's not too hard to figure out that the bureaucrats have an interest in making people conduct as much of their financial affairs as possible through banks because it makes the details of those affairs easily available to them. The don't want people conducting any substantial amount of their financial affairs in cash, and will do everything they can to discourage it.

78 posted on 10/18/2006 5:04:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
2000, Congress passed CAFRA, which substantially changed the federal asset forfeiture laws.

Does CAFRA apply to each state's local law enforcement or only to federal agents?

The government would have to file within 90 days, and the government now has the burden of proof (not the defendant).

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?

79 posted on 10/18/2006 5:22:54 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ivy
Are you thinking of Willie Jones?
Willie Jones, a second-generation nursery man in his family's Nashville business, bundles up money from last year's profits and heads off to buy flowers and shrubs in Houston. He makes this trip twice a year using cash, which the small growers prefer.

But this time, as he waits at the American Airlines gate in Nashville Metro Airport, he's flanked by two police officers who escort him into a small office, search him and seize the $9,600 he's carrying. A ticket agent had alerted the officers that a large black man had paid for his ticket in bills, unusual these days. Because of the cash, and the fact that he fit a "profile" of what drug dealers supposedly look like, they believed he was buying or selling drugs.

He's free to go, he's told. But they keep his money - his livelihood - and give him a receipt in its place.

No evidence of wrongdoing was ever produced. No charges were ever filed. As far as anyone knows, Willie Jones neither uses drugs nor buys or sells them. He is a gardening contractor who bought an airplane ticket. Who lost his hard-earned money to the cops. And can't get it back.
(From the Presumed Guilty series, by The Pittsburgh Press)


Whether you "think" they are criminals is NOT the standard.

Unfortunately, it seems to be (even post-CAFRA2K). "Presumption of innocence" is not required for civil forfeiture. Nice evasion of criminal requirements, eh?

Disclaimer: IANAL :-)

80 posted on 10/18/2006 7:13:26 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson