Posted on 04/18/2018 3:13:20 PM PDT by Ken H
Utah Supreme Court to decide whether police can avoid ban on taking money from motorists not charged with any crime by calling in the feds.
Voters in Utah banned state officials from seizing property from people who committed no crime almost two decades ago -- or so they thought. Ever since Initiative B passed with 69 percent of the vote, police have evaded its provisions by seizing cash, turning it over to federal authorities, and then taking a cut of the proceeds in a way that is prohibited under state law. The Utah Supreme Court last week held oral arguments on a roadside seizure case that will decide whether law enforcement has gone too far.
Initiative B does not ban civil asset forfeiture. The measure merely states that full due process protections, including trial by jury, apply to the proceedings. It bans taking property from innocent owners and anyone found not guilty in criminal proceedings and explicitly prohibits state agencies from transferring seized property "directly or indirectly" to federal agencies without a court order. The law bans law enforcement agencies from profiting from seizure by ordering the cash to be given to the public school system, although the legislature loosened the restriction in 2004.
Kyle Savely had his money taken on November 27, 2016, after he was pulled over on Interstate 80 in Summit County for allegedly following someone too closely. That traffic charge was eventually thrown out, but the Utah Highway Patrol officer who stopped Savely called in a drug dog who alerted on his car. There were no drugs, but the officers helped themselves to $500,000 in cash that he was carrying in a Nautica bag.
Savely was never charged with any crime, and Utah law clearly states that the money should have been returned within 75 days if no charges were filed. The highway patrol bypassed that requirement by tipping off the Drug Enforcement Administration which had a federal judge issue an order to take the money.
"The cynic in me would say that what happened here was that this is a lot of money, that your client wanted to avoid the court, alerted DEA as to what happened here and is happy to circumvent the court proceedings in this case," one high court justice speculated last week.
Several of the justices expressed skepticism over the state's argument that Utah courts have no jurisdiction over the seizure at all. The high court must decide whether the linguistic loophole that prosecutors have been using allows the case to be taken over by a federal court, where the property protections found in Utah's law do not apply.
"Initiative B took great pains to end policing for profit," the Libertas Institute wrote in its friend of the court brief. "Under UHP's vision of the statute, state agencies can seize property under state law, ignore state law protections by turning the seizure over to the federal government without a court ordered transfer, and then receive the proceeds back with no strings attached, cleansed by federal forfeiture proceedings. At best this resembles forum shopping and, at worst, money laundering."
Arbitrary seizures by law enforcement are nothing less than legalized armed robbery.
Period.
I have recently carried large sums of cash from the sale of, or for the purchase of, a car. For private sales people don’t take checks, even bank checks which are easily faked. Once you have signed the title, the car is gone, so cash is a must.
It has occurred to me that if I am stopped, as the law currently stands, the money can be taken even if I am never charged with or convicted of a crime. From what I’ve read, it is practically impossible to get your money back.
My only problem with Trump.
The forth amendment is key for the rule of law.
You want my stuff, take it legally.
Take it back by raiding their pension funds and reducing the pensions of the involved criminals in blue.
Yup - Utah cops stealing money and laundering it through the feds. Disgusting.
NYC cops seize stuff and it goes to their pension. Talk about a incentive.
Yep, and it’s the rank and file who would steal your money.
Start slamming cops into prison for this crap.
L
Funny how that works - if a guy has a lot of cash, the dog "alerts" on his car even if no drugs are found.
These are nothing more than modern .gov highwaymen, dressed up in colorful klown garb and shiny badges, all done to fool the sheeple, ripping them off.
“Under UHP’s vision of the statute, state agencies can seize property under state law, ignore state law protections by turning the seizure over to the federal government without a court ordered transfer, and then receive the proceeds back with no strings attached, cleansed by federal forfeiture proceedings. At best this resembles forum shopping and, at worst, money laundering.”
How is that even possible?
The authoritarian mind will stop at nothing to stop others from pursuing happiness.
The only safe approach would be to do the transaction at your bank. Withdraw the cash, accept the title, and do it all under bank surveillance cameras.
We pay the roofer in cash. We walked into his office with slightly under $10,000.00 in cash on us.
If the police had stopped us we might have taken a major financial hit.
“The only safe approach would be to do the transaction at your bank. Withdraw the cash, accept the title, and do it all under bank surveillance cameras.”
I bought a car from a doctor who most likely would not have had the time to got to a bank. I wanted the car. I drove it. I took out the cash and counted it out and drove off with the car.
Another time, I got the seller to meet me at the bank and the teller counted out the money into his hand.
On another occasion, I handled the cash for a seller in Israel and took the cash to his bank. The teller refused to take the cash because, “I’m not authorized to take that much cash.” I leaned forward and whispered, “Then find someone who is. I’ll wait.”
The ‘rest of the story’...
“...Lynda Viti, who argued the case on behalf of the UHP, said Savely’s number was plugged into a database and it came up as being under investigation by the DEA.
An attorney representing the DEA also argued to the court that the feds did have jurisdiction over the money — not the state.
Mark Burns, the director of the Utah Attorney General’s Highways and Utilities division, insisted the state would not get a cut, nor did it try to break the law.
“We had a federal court seizure warrant that was in place and the Highway Patrol wanted to make sure they were not in violation of,” he told FOX 13. “We didn’t have a stake in the outcome. We just wanted to make sure we were complying with the order of the court.” “
I think his beef is with the feds.
I think he was lucky this time and should get his dope money back.
Maybe they’ll catch him with the goods next time.
They didn't find the cash until after the "alert", which is what gives them so-called "probable cause" to search the vehicle.
Via either intentional fakery, or simply because the "training" is not legitimate, drug dogs almost always alert. A search for "probable cause on a leash" is enlightening.
re: titles
I’m in Florida.
I find that the dealerships lobbyied and got electronic title of M.V. to be the default. Pain in the ass. I cannot verify title and if seller on private sale doesnt have physical title — NO SALE.
Crooked big business in bed with legislature.
Asset forfeiture is a great evil all across this land. All parties participating are nothing but thieves with badges, and should be dealt with accordingly.
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.