[Graybeard58]

This is a very bad law.

[af_vet_1981]

This is a very bad law.

Did you lose some money ?

[hoosiermama]

Is this near you? Do you think we should try claiming it?

[Psycho_Bunny]

If these forfeiture laws aren't the very definition of tyranny, I don't know what is.

[FierceDraka]

Forget due process - this rabidly unconstitutional "law" seems more like a letter of marque and reprisal, turning the police from peace officers to de facto privateers.

(For those unfamiliar with the concept, a privateer is nothing but a pirate with the backing of a government.)

[Flyer]

Very bad.

[wizr]

"I want to make it clear that the money is no longer here, in case anyone gets
any ideas," Luehmann said.

Uhhh...are they afraid they couldn't protect the stash?

[MindBender26]

We are in Florida, where these seizures are common.

The mid level people from whom the drug money is taken always want a receipt, so they won't be killed for losing the money.

In addition, in order to get it back, all they have to do is show some semblance of documentation that the money was theirs. No one ever claims it.

BTW, most seizures are not random. They come from tips from competing drug dealers.

[Drammach]

This is a very bad law.

Yes it is..

And I would like to explain that to some of the ahhh..
"Indoctrinated" deniers..

But I have been arguing semantics and truth with another group of .... misanthropes? in another thread all day..

So I'm not going to express any opinion on this one..
Not today..

Although, if someone wanted to compare these seizures to the way seizure of private property for personal gain drove the Spanish Inquisition, well....
I would have to agree on that point..

But I won't..

[Old Professer]

If those guys confiscate my $36.18 I'll be dead broke.

[Rebelbase]

20 years ago a guy with Texas tags on his car came in an wrote and offer on the first 100 acres or rural property a guy in my office showed him.

He came back the next day with with a garbage bag with $80,000 in $5's-$10's-$20's in to put in escrow.

Took 3 hours to count it all.

[hoosierham]

This is a horrible law.

All forfeitures should require the gov't to prove criminal acts and all the money should go into the general fund of the state,to be disbursed as the legislature deems proper. Giving any agency control of its own budget only leads to even more waste than usual.

[Netizen]

Usually the FBI or police are not entitled to monies from things pertaining to doing their jobs. For instance, when reward money is issued they are exempt. Why is this different?

[tyen]

This is a very bad law.

I've never been subject to this law, but am adamantly opposed to such an odious legislated infraction of our Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure. The entire edifice of civil asset forfeiture rests upon the legal fiction of in rem jurisdiction, where the property being seized is treated as the guilty party. The longer this offensive practice stays on the books, the more I'm encouraged to diversify my assets out of the United States purely as a defensive measure.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents this practice from devolving in the future into prosecutors shaking down citizens with small businesses, and taking part in turning our nation into a fourth-rate penny-ante patchwork of strongmen fiefdoms given a tissue-paper legitimacy by these sham laws. And before any naysayers out there say this is just paranoid fantasy, what prevents private sector attornies from going on fishing expeditions for tort cases? That right, nothing except the evaluated odds of winning. So what in hell makes you think prosecutors are going to be any different when they figure out that they are unlikely to be slapped on the wrist for wrongful prosecution because the expense of mounting a legal counterattack is so punishingly damaging to most businesses?

CAFRA requires proof by a preponderance of evidence that the property should be forfeited. There is a common mistaken belief that the burden of proof upon the government is satisfied by mere suspicion. This used to be true, but no longer since the passage of CAFRA in 2000. It would be even better if the required test of evidence was clear and convincing evidence, given the rapacious pecuniary interest of the government bureaucrats involved.

Based upon the sketchy details given here however, I'm unmoved by the officer's "hunch" as sufficient evidence to satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" test, especially because the truck driver was released without being charged. The definition of "preponderance of evidence": a standard of judging evidence by which the judge or the jury determines whether an issue of fact is more probable than not probable.

If this is really drug money, at the very least the truck driver is a courier, if not an actual dealer. The driver was not arrested for inebriation, illegal drug possession, or even disorderly conduct. If there are any police officers here, I would really like to hear what kind of evidence on earth could let you conclude that yes, this is drug money and yes, you can let the courier go without being charged at the same time. How can you possibly be helping a drug operation, be caught red-handed, and walk away?

The prosecutors, chiefs of police, and law enforcement officers who take part in any seizures knowing they haven't a solid leg to stand on but do so anyways because the spin of the seizure roulette wheel says that they get to keep the property more often than not because the owners simply can't justify mounting a legal defense that exceeds the value of the property should be tried for violating the Constitution. Thank God this is not yet a widespread trend, but it is only a matter of time.

[Dead Corpse]

"Prove you are innocent, or we will take everything you have."

Is this still America?

[Ghengis]

A Pontoon Beach police officer acting on a hunch searched a tractor-trailer at a truck stop...

The words at the beginning of the article sets a bad tone for me to this whole incident.

[Cultural Jihad]

Money is just a conveyance for the tranferance of value from one individual to another. It is owned by the Federal Reserve, not by the holder of the conveyance. That is why it is illegal for an individual to destroy the money they "own." If criminals and UberKonservativs don't like that arrangement they can devise their own conveyances if they want to.

[William Terrell]

If the driver can't provide proof he obtained the money legally, federal law requires that it be divided between Pontoon Beach police and federal agencies.

And the proof required?

1) Six sets of ID

2) Sworn affidavits from each contributor to the total back to the federal reserve printing press

3) 320 documents providing proof of citizenship including bill receipts for the last 5 years

4) Written verification that 3 sets of drug dogs sniffing the owners house, possessions, vehicles and each place visited for the last 5 weeks alerted not one time

5) Full body xray from 4 different positions with sworn affidavit from doctor that no trace of hidden drugs were found

6) Full dental examine with sworn affidavit from dentist that no tooth scrapping revealed any drug residue

7) Full NCIC and 50 state public records check with written verification that no misdemeanors had been committed in that state since birth

8) All bank account for all banks used since puberty

9) Sworn affidavits from all surviving family member for 3 generation that each generation was raised in a drug free household

All at the expense of the investigatee.

[Cultural Jihad]

Someone else posted this:

"Prove you are innocent, or we will take everything you have."

Is this still America?

Anyone carrying around $3.3 million dollars in cash is not a poster child for America, for either they are criminals or insane or stupid.

Sure, perhaps there could be a case of some wealthy ACLU ideologue-type deciding to carry a large amount of cash around because he can, and others be damned. Some people are so mean, they would never spit if they ever thought it do anyone some good.

[Centurion2000]

If the driver can't provide proof he obtained the money legally, federal law requires that it be divided between Pontoon Beach police and federal agencies.

D*#ned THIEVES. Whatever happened to due process and the 5th ??

[OldEagle]

"A Pontoon Beach police officer acting on a hunch searched a tractor-trailer..."

Does a hunch equal probable cause? Lacking probable cause is it a legal search? If it is not a legal search, is it a legal seizure?