Posted on 12/04/2017 5:46:17 AM PST by Leaning Right
A Wyoming judge ordered the state Friday to return nearly $92,000 seized from a musician during a traffic stop that resulted in no criminal charges or even an arrest, according to the man's attorney.
*snip*
Parhamovich said the officers implied that carrying that much cash was illegal. He lied and said it was a friend's.
Parhamovich said officers then told him that he could leave if he signed a form saying he was giving the $91,800 to the investigative agency for "narcotics law enforcement purposes."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Sarcasm cannot be discerned by all, as some lack the intellect.
Obviously.
Cash in hand is a very good incentive in negotiating a purchase.
I once sold an amp for 1/3 less than I wanted when the money was laid on the table.
But can he play smoke on the water?
Or 73,000 snow cones.
“The so-called musician had nefarious purposes for that cash.”
Did you read the article? It really helps to better understand the world around you.
Really? If he wants it read as sarcasm then a :/ tag would have been useful.
As things are today, even on FR forums it maybe his real opinion.
I’ve read posts defending the indefensible before, particularly when it comes to LE.
talk about brain freeze...
Alban said it’s troubling that the officers who pulled the musician over had a printed copy of the waiver handy during the roadside encounter.
If the judge’s orders the sherrif jailed for contempt, it will probably expedite the cash return. Signing anything was under duress.
Absolutely.
And part of the reason I never allow my vehicle to be searched without a warrant.
I certainly read the article. I assumed the worst, despite the explanation of the musician. By doing that, you don’t have to even defend against the unwarranted taking with a plausible reason for having the cash. Law enforcement had no REASON to take the cash, even if it was illicit. The judge’s ruling was correct.
Simply having cash, even if having it with evil intent, is not a crime (without a WHOLE LOT of extra circumstances which certainly were not present here.)
> I never allow my vehicle to be searched without a warrant. <
Don’t forget the ol’ drug-sniffing dog routine. The cops can have a dog sniff around your car without your permission. They can search the interior of your car only if the dog has alerted.
But if the cops want the dog to alert, that dog will alert. (Some reports have said police dogs false-alert over half the time. Bias of the handler is one reason for that.)
And, BTW, in our Oklahoma County, the head law enforcement officers made a principled decision to NOT seek civil forfeiture unless there was a direct connection between the property seized and the purported crime THAT RESULTED IN A CONVICTION. They were criticized by others for simply following Constitutional safeguards.
I watch PAWN STARS on weekends. Yesterday, a long time studio musician brought in his own guitar, a 1961 Fender, and sold it to Rick Harrison for $55,000. Love watching that show.
I wonder if a police dog would ‘alert’ on my car. In 36 years, there have been at least 8 different dogs in that car......
They don't need a warrant, they just need a K-9 to "alert" on your vehicle.
I don’t care whether he intended to pay taxes on that money or not. I don’t care whether he intended to use that money for “legitimate” purposes or not. It was stolen by law enforcement, and I’m glad he’s getting his money back. I hope he will also recover damages. Stealing is not okay, not even when government officials are the ones engaged in theft.
Dumb really, really dumb. At that moment the cash became abandon property.
"Money For Nothing, Chicks For Free!"
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.