Posted on 05/15/2015 9:13:01 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Joseph Rivers was never convicted of a crime. He was never charged with one, or even officially detained. But that didn't stop the Drug Enforcement Administration from taking his life savings away under civil asset forfeiture, the highly controversial practice that allows law enforcement officers to take property from people whom they never even charge with a crime.
I spoke with Rivers's attorney, Michael Pancer of San Diego, about the case yesterday. He said the situation Rivers got caught up in -- where federal agents boarded a train and started asking people questions like "who are you?" and "where are you going?" -- is a lot more common than you might expect. "Their purpose is to try to find money to seize or find evidence of criminal activity," he told me. "That's why they do it. But I think the main purpose is to try to find money."
Many law-abiding citizens may not be worried about civil forfeiture laws, because why would police target you if you haven't committed a crime? But when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, it doesn't matter whether you commit a crime or not. If you exhibit certain types of behavior that law enforcement officers deem "suspicious" -- a broad category encompassing everything from having empty energy drink cans in your car to buying a one-way train ticket with cash -- they can use that as a basis for a determination that property you own was obtained through illegal means.
In last year's Washington Post investigation of highway asset forfeitures, experts outlined the contours of law governing these encounters. In a similar spirit, here's what experts say about how the law works in situations like the one Joseph Rivers found himself in.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I doubt that refusing consent to search would have helped Rivers as the jackboots have zero consequences for violating your rights and will simply search illegally. I know of nothing in the asset forfeiture scam, er laws, that gets you your money back if the search is illegal. Pigs are still going to keep the money till you get a lawyer to get it back.
It will fix a this part of it.
Look, these people who end up dead shouldn't have been living in crime-ridden neighborhoods. If you are living among the criminal underclass, you probably associate with them, and are probably much worse than the person they targeted. It's time we get off the backs of the hard working police who maybe make a minor mistake from time to time. I support the police no matter what they do.
Google “Donald Scott ranch” if you want to see both in action.
you forgot 'shoot back'
I am unaware of any provision in the Constitution that authorizes the existence of a “Drug Enforcement Agency”.
Disband it; anticonstitutional tyranny must end.
Some Noobie is going to take you seriously. Prepare yourself.
And that’s the way it is 5/14/15... in Amerikakistan The Pitiful!
As has been evidenced time and again, here on FR, they are on and will be the front line for confiscating weapons, and the situation will be much the same as this. If they come for my guns, I don't rightly care what the situation is - the only way they will get them is to pry them from my cold dead hands.
I withdrew a large amount of cash from my bank during the financial crisis. I asked for a copy of Form 8300 so I could prove the cash was mine. The bank officer said it was all electronic and they could not discuss it’s existence.
Why? If it was taken in an illegal action, why can’t the person get their money back?
Legalizing law enforcement is not going to fix it either.
Just tell the DEA agents the cash is for a donation to the Clinton Foundation.
The correct answer to which is "Who are YOU to ask that question? None of your damned business. May I see your warrant?".
You’ll be able to tell what I’m doing. If I start my missive with the word “Look,...” and it’s all one paragraph, I’m doing the Noobie Netting ... lol
Look, if guns are banned, you need to be lawful and let the police collect them. After all it is not like they are doing the banning. They are under orders. Supporting the cops is an American ideal! We need to support the cops right or wrong. Besides, guns are dangerous and scary and you can put out your eye. Why do you need a gun anyways? The government is more than capable of protecting you!
IMHO, these agents didn’t just “happen” to question Rivers. They were in all likelihood reacting to a “tip” from an informant or from a phone tap.
By the way, it continues to surprise me how many dopers hang out here on Free Republic. Shouldn’t they be over on DU somewhere?
Taking something off the list isn’t going to fix it.
Come up with another argument for drugs, pretending that our problems with law enforcement and government will disappear when drugs are legal, isn’t it.
And as you can see on this thread, there are still plenty of folks who wholeheartedly support the destruction of the rule of law so they can feel good, or as is often the case, profit from it.
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.