Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by LibWhacker
>FYI....I am a retired forfeiture detective. It is highly unlikely the police “seized the money” without PROBABLE CAUSE. There is no way a mere possession charge is going to trigger a forfeiture.<
How many times have you heard about someone who was stopped by the highway patrol for some driving offense having a suitcase full of money in the vehicle, and the money was seized by the highway patrol?
Yes, I know that in most cases this money is laundered drug money and the friver isn’t taking claim to it but just the same it is government snatching cold hard cash because they have the power to do it.
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Legal Director Jeff Gamso said Ricks has a tough road ahead, not impossible, but tough to get back his money. “The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you’re innocent. It’s terrible, terrible law,” he said. The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said. “The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,” he said. Still Ricks can pursue it and possibly convince a judge he had the money through a lifetime of savings. Asking the FBI usually doesn’t work, he said.
He has a stated method of obtaining his money. All he has to do is tell his case to a judge. Not a "jack booted thug". A judge. A judge in a probably very, very liberal area. Now - I repeat: why wouldn't the ACLU happily and quickly help this man out?
I wonder how many of those highway cash seizures are actually bribes. In the accounts I've read about, the driver is free to go on his merry way.
Just tell the mule to take this here $200,000 and drive on I-70 east from Columbus. Meantime, someone is tipped off to be on the lookout for this vehicle on I-70. Voila - a "legal" bribe.
In days of old it was fairly easy to do these types of interdictions. The cops usually has a CI that would let them know that something was headed either north (drugs) or south (money). The car would be pulled over on a traffic stop, PROBABLE CAUSE; the driver would begin to act suspiciously, especially when a drug dog was on the scene and the dog would “alert” to the drug residue on the cash. This would be the “probable cause” to allow the seizure of the cash pending a court review.
Now, since so much money in circulation has had some contact with drugs, it is highly unlikely you could seize the money just because a dog alerts on it. Also this is usually the purest form of profiling. You’d have a car headed north with Texas plates, or what was being done just before I retired, the car would be a rental. The driver usually was a casual user as well and would do a little weed on the trip. The smell lingers for a long time and of course there is the residue in the vehicle.
The driver would have some BS story that could easily be proved to be not true. Like “I’m going to Toledo to visit some friends: But he doesn’t have an address.
This just gets you the PC to seize the money. You still haven’t had a forfeiture hearing. Then my office would get involved and try to prove/disprove that the person with the large form of funds had the means necessary to have acquired the sum of cash. I still had to go to court and prove to a judge by a PREPONDERENCE OF THE EVIDENCE that the cash was either proceeds or facilitation. The burden of proof is still on the state. While the legal standard is lower, it is a fallacy to think the suspect has to prove the cash is his. I have to prove it isn’t.
While I respect most of the opinions of my fellow freepers, I take offense to the cavalier attitude of some who think law enforcement officers spend their waking hours trying to screw the public. Most of my former brothers and sisters who “protect and serve” do so at an enormous risk to themselves and at a cost to our families as well. If you think this job is a piece of cake. It’s pretty obvious you’ve never been involved in law enforcement other than the time you were stopped for DUI or stopped for speeding (both illegal acts, by the way)Police work is both boring and dangerous. I was lucky to retire with nothing more than two knee surgeries, 1 back surgery, and hypertension.
Next time you feel like making disparaging remarks about the men and women in law enforcement, think about what the alternative would be like.
Do we have bad apples...yes....do they reflect the attitude of all...certainly not.. Have a Merry Christmas a SAFE and Happy New Year and I am now stepping off my soap box :)
Awful story.
I wonder what the fine is in Lima for possession of pot (misdemeanor, assuming less than 2 ounces, for instance). Maybe $500? At most, $1,000?
Yet in this case, the essential penalty is a couple’s life savings, more than $400,000.
That’s terrible. Not at all what our forefathers envisioned for us as citizens.
“against our heroes of law enforcement who protect and defend us with their very lives”
Hahahaha....!!!!!Man, that’s a good one!
Every day that goes by and this doesn't happen I'm amazed given what fedgov thinks is within their power to do to us.
Merry Christmas to you as well.
I think the real key is that they won't fight back, at least not physically, which is all that would be understood.
You need to ping everyone in this thread to your posts.
So what's the max amount of cash we're allowed to have in our possession before it becomes illegal?
>Next time you feel like making disparaging remarks about the men and women in law enforcement, think about what the alternative would be like.<
Do you have an example of the “disparaging remarks”?
A decent *possibility*. When you have lots of cash flowing, bribes are a normal business practice.
>I just get pretty fired up watching the freedoms we had, even as little as 25 years ago, getting tossed aside. The 4th amendment has been desecrated, and the 6 years of Republican control did NOTHING to undo the damage. It’s really sickening!<
Which Republican candidate do you think would do anything about this?
“why wouldn’t the ACLU happily and quickly help this man out?”
Nice try at slight of hand. The answer is; Because they know they would lose and they want to spend their time with a case they think they can win. Know what that proves? Absolutely nothing. Even the ACLU must get tired of tilting at windmills after a while. The ACLU guy also said it was a “terrible terrible law”.
“All he has to do is tell his case to a judge. Not a “jack booted thug”. A judge. A judge in a probably very, very liberal area.”
Really, is that all? It was a federal seizure by federal agents. The judge would be federal, not some local Democrat elected hack. And do you think he just walks in to court and gets to talk to a judge? No. The judge can just refuse to here it, which he will. This ant can be safely ignored. Maybe if some of that 400K had been a political contribution he might have had a shot. As it is,his right to redress of grievance is zero. That’s not the way it is supposed to be.
If the FBI got all geared up because they knew the guy was crooked then charge him. It looks like he may well be guilty. If he is, how hard can the conviction be?
The defacto judge here is the FBI. The whole point of our justice system is you don’t get to be judge, jury and executioner. If they have evidence then let them make their case in front of a jury.
For some reason you think the guy does not deserve a trial. Why?
Sure....take a look at post 4 “FBI are thieves with badges and guns..” Post 8; Post 56,59,60,64,67, and 124.
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.