Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by LibWhacker
LIMA — Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.’s house this summer may have not gotten his life savings he had in a safe, but after the FBI confiscated it he may not get it back.
Ricks has tried to get an attorney to fight for the $402,767 but he has no money. Lima Police Department officers originally took the money from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said.
“They are saying I have to prove I made it,” he said.
The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.
A representative of the FBI could not be reached for comment.
During the fatal shooting incident inside the house June 30, Ricks and his son were being attacked by two men and his son was stabbed. Ricks broke free, grabbed a gun and shot to death 32-year-old Jyhno Rock inside his home at 939 Greenlawn Ave.
Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.
“I smoke marijuana. I have arthritis. I have shingles, a hip replacement,” he said.
Ricks, who is retired from Ohio Steel Foundry, said he always had a safe at home and never had a bank account.
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.
“The FBI, before they would give it up, would want dated receipts,” he said.
If the FBI does keep the money, it would be put toward a law enforcement use, if the city of Lima does not fight for it because the city discovered it, Gamso said.
Lima Law Director Tony Geiger said he has not been asked to stake a legal claim for the money.
...or knowing that the police are soon going to find $400,000 in cash in your safe that you cannot account for.
You also cannot account for the reason two guys from Tennessee were paying you a visit, one of whom is assuming room temperature in your living room. Yeah, that'll make one nervous.
Its because they realize it is hopeless. This guy has to prove he is innocent. And that is impossible to do, which is why those evil scum can take the money with impunity.
No, It's because the ACLU only takes cases that hurt the conservative original intent of this country's foundings... they never have and never will take a case to help an honest citizen who was denied their right to keep and bear arms, or the citizen who has been discriminated upon by having her bible study meeting closed down by the city/county... they only support flag burners and criminals attacking the government for unjust causes... Not saying it's not hopeless, just that it's not their reason for not helping...
Then again, if your life savings is in the safe where it belongs and has no connection to the events that caused the police to arrive, why would you just open it? Did they have a warrant? I'd probably lie in that situation also....
Is that 10 days from mailing or receipt? 10 days isn't very long for most people.... a lot of times I don't even get my mail until 10 days after it was mailed...
The had probable cause, given the circumstances. By the time they got a warrant, the safe would be empty.
But I bet you knew that.
In June, the sloop Liberty, belonging to John Hancock, whom the crown officers cordially hated because of his opposition to them, was seized under peculiar circumstances. She had come into the harbor with a cargo of Madeira wine. Just at sunset, the "tide-waiter" in the employ of the commissioners went on board, and took his seat in the cabin, as usual, to drink punch with the master until the sailors should land the cargo of dutiable goods. Hancock had resolved to resist the obnoxious revenue laws; and at about nine o'clock in the evening, his captain and others in his employ entered the cabin, confined the tidewaiter, and proceeded to land the wine without entering it at the custom-house or observing any other formula. So great were the exertions of the master of the Liberty that night, that he died from their effects before morning.It was evidence. Officer, did you ever swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? Just wondering.The sloop was now seized by the officers of the customs for a violation of the revenue laws.
I mean, what country do we live in?
I gues I’m at a loss at where you’re going with this....look at the facts of the underlying case...remove the obvious historical reference and then tell me what the problem is....in other words John Smith arrives in the United States with a load of weapons which he is intending to drive across the southern border.....He knows he is required by law to declare the weapons and pay a duty on them. Because he doesn’t feel like paying the duty, he invites the customs officer over for a little chat, holds him against his will and proceeds to unload the now illegal weapons into the Unites States. Now do see a problem with this scenario? Let’s say the cavalry arrives and decides to seize the conveyance (the auto) that was used to bring the weapons into the country (facilitation) Where has the state overstepped it’s authority? It is enforcing the prevailing law at the time.
As for your question of defending the Constitution, I did swear to uphold it and sometimes it means enforcing laws that I may not personally agree with. But we are a nation of law...not selective enforcement.
I am also amused at the number of people here that are forming their opinions based on a newspaper article. I would hazard a guess the newspaper reporter wasn’t at the scene of the original event, probably doesn’t know what and how the events unfolded, and has only talked with one side of the players.
Unless Geraldo was present at the scene and positively identified the safe as belonging to Al Capone, I doubt we know the whole story, but everyone has jumped to conclusions including calling the cops a bunch of thieves, one poster not bothered about putting an officer or two in the ground. For all the posters here who have bandied about the constitutional protection afforded to the “defendant.” I don’t believe MY constitutional rights were suspended just because I put on a badge and among the most basic is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
I don’t think any of us has the background information on this case. If you want to be a dispassionate observer, ask yourself the following questions
1. The cops were there for a robbery/felonious assault/homicide. Why would they want to look in the safe?
2. Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE that there wasn’t a SEARCH WARRANT pulled for the contents of the safe?
3. Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE the defendant didn’t attempt to HIDE THE GUN in the safe?
4. Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE why the FBI notified the local jurisdiction that they were assuming the forfeiture?
I think everyone ought to cool their jets until all the evidence comes out. Rule 1 of Detective school is to follow the evidence where it takes you...not selectively take evidence in the direction you want to go.
Look -- it is John Hancock's signature, in BOLD, leading the Declaration of Independence. He, too, like the other founders also believed in the Rule of Law. Why then did he run customs, and why then did all the patriots -- also law-abiding men -- in Boston rush to get that seized Liberty back?
What Law are we talking about?
Where has the State overstepped its authority?
History says, as in the case of Hancock's Liberty, that sometimes the State does so. What is the law?
$0.01................
Apparently not in Atlanta, just ask Kathryn Johnston, oh wait, she's in the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston
If you read the article, you’ll find that the cops told the judge that there was video surveillance equipment at the woman’s house and that was their justification for the “no-knock” portion of the search warrant. It also states she opened fire on the officers while they were prying off the security door.
Understand this, I am not in any way trying to justify the actions of the Atlanta detectives that basically lied to the judge to secure the search warrant, but, they still had to present additional reasons in order to obtain the no-knock warrant.
I’ve been involved in hundreds of search warrants and I’ve had some that where the lead detective’s PC may not past the smell test. But, I still maintain that most of the people who are involved in law enforcement are hard-working, honest people that are trying to do their best to protect the citizenry. I don’t think there is a better alternative, do you?
The path to hell is laid with good intentions and hard-working, honest people trying to do their best. Your original remark was, "for what it's worth, obtaining a no-knock warrant isn't very easy..." or something to that effect. Obviously if all it takes is for someone to lie and fabricate things and they get a no-knock warrant, that isn't a process that lends itself to any checks and balances. What you're trying to allude to is a difference without a distinction as far as obtaining a warrant vs. a no-knock warrant. A DA can indict a ham sandwich, and judges rubber stamp warrants. If they didn't, we wouldn't be discussing Kathryn Johnston.
Here's a suggestion, try policing your own ranks, we the people are getting fed up with reading about this kind of horsesh!t and will only tolerate it for so long.
http://www.badcopnews.com/
Probable cause should not be sufficient grounds to confiscate anything in this country. Perhaps to detain it, but definitely not to confiscate it.
I can see confiscating things that are obviously used in criminal activity, but is there really any justification for allowing the confiscation of cash with anything less than beyond reasonable doubt? Especially if the burden of proof is placed on the guy who had it confiscated?
“The FBI are thieves...”
All of the three letter agencies (FBI, IRS, ATF etc) are thieves.
I’m sorry you feel this way. My comments were based on the Wiki article you cited. I wasn’t there, I didn’t see the search warrant affidavit and I’m not about to try and make an argument based on third party information.
I can say, I’ve been involved in well over 100 search warrants and most of the officers I worked with would never BS a search warrant. I can’t speak for Atlanta’s department though.
Having a surveillance system COULD be grounds for a no-knock” if there is a risk to officer safety or if evidence would be destroyed.
As for your comments about the SWAT team “storming” the house and how “sorry” you are that she didn’t take “one or two” with her...How can you wrap youself in the Constitution about the 2nd Amendment yet deny “due process” to the officers on the SWAT team?
FYI, most major departments use the SWAT team to effect entry. These guys are only SERVING the search warrant, they didn’t go in front of the judge and present the affidavit. The narc cops who BS’d the warrant should be the ones who incur your wrath, not the guys who served it.
Lastly, if you are familiar with SWAT operations, a “dynamic” entry is used to protect not only the safety of the officer, but also the safety of the suspect. Hard as it may seem to you, a “dynamic enty” “shocks” the suspect to the point where he/she is unable to react to the entry. Most of the time it works quite well.
As for YOUR security camera, unless you’re running an illegal operation, I don’t think you have anything to worry about. You are “cherry-picking” facts and trying to make your argument on emotion rather than fact. Step back, look at this objectively and tell me again why you think some police officer should DIE because a detective BS’d a warrant.
Look, I’m not going to defend the wrongdoing of any officer. It is tragic that someone died because of the actions of a couple of detectives (who were tried and convicted)but you are painting everyone who wears the badge with a pretty broad brush.
I wasn’t there, and I’m making a leap that you weren’t either. I suggest before you advocate/condone the killing of a LE officer you consider the alternatives.
While you and I obviously seem to see this from different perspectives...at least we can agree on one thing....GO FRED
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.