From FTA:
Civil asset forfeiture is based on the premise that a piece of property -- a car, a pile of cash, a house -- can be guilty of a crime. Laws vary from state to state, but generally, law enforcement officials can seize property if they can show any connection between the property and illegal activity. It is then up to the owner of the property to prove in court that he owns it or earned it legitimately. It doesn't require a property owner to actually be convicted of a crime. In fact, most people who lose property to civil asset forfeiture are never charged.

Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

She should have written a check

NowhereMon: She should have written a check

She couldn't:

"The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

This is why money should be laundered

dustman81: From FTA:
Civil asset forfeiture is based on the premise that a piece of property -- a car, a pile of cash, a house -- can be guilty of a crime. Laws vary from state to state, but generally, law enforcement officials can seize property if they can show any connection between the property and illegal activity. It is then up to the owner of the property to prove in court that he owns it or earned it legitimately. It doesn't require a property owner to actually be convicted of a crime. In fact, most people who lose property to civil asset forfeiture are never charged.

Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Not necessarily. The 4th Amendment categorically does not prohibit reasonable searches and seizures. Courts have ruled that asset forfeiture laws are not violations of the 4th, even though they probably should have, because courts say that if the cops have probable cause to believe that the money is drug-related than it proper to seize it as fruits of crime. And in theory, asset forfeiture laws make at least some sense; a millionaire crime kingpin shouldn't be able to go to prison, then leave and go right back to his millionaire lifestyle. However, in practice, the laws are almost never used the way they were intended, and both crooked and clean cops abuse the system and lie in order to get money for their departments, because the incentives are just so damn bad.

St_Francis_P: NowhereMon: She should have written a check

She couldn't:

"The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

They could have brought a cashier's check and the cops would have to have taken it. Greer probably didn't know that, however.

"In fact, Donna Kuchler, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney based in Waukesha, said police aren't allowed to insist on cash. I would be suspicious of why they would do that," Kuchler says. "I had a case last year in Fond du Lac County where they tried to say my client could only pay in cash. My guess is that they probably intended to do the same thing that happened here. We brought a cashier's check anyway, and they knew they had to accept it."

If the cops insist on me carrying a large amount of cash, I'd be suspicious. The cops just wanted to say "this money is dirty and now, it's ours." I wonder if the Justice Department knows about this county's bail scam.

dustman81: St_Francis_P: NowhereMon: She should have written a check

She couldn't:

"The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

They could have brought a cashier's check and the cops would have to have taken it. Greer probably didn't know that, however.

"In fact, Donna Kuchler, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney based in Waukesha, said police aren't allowed to insist on cash. I would be suspicious of why they would do that," Kuchler says. "I had a case last year in Fond du Lac County where they tried to say my client could only pay in cash. My guess is that they probably intended to do the same thing that happened here. We brought a cashier's check anyway, and they knew they had to accept it."

If the cops insist on me carrying a large amount of cash, I'd be suspicious. The cops just wanted to say "this money is dirty and now, it's ours." I wonder if the Justice Department knows about this county's bail scam.

Why do you think they'd do anything about it?

Rincewind53: dustman81: From FTA:
Civil asset forfeiture is based on the premise that a piece of property -- a car, a pile of cash, a house -- can be guilty of a crime. Laws vary from state to state, but generally, law enforcement officials can seize property if they can show any connection between the property and illegal activity. It is then up to the owner of the property to prove in court that he owns it or earned it legitimately. It doesn't require a property owner to actually be convicted of a crime. In fact, most people who lose property to civil asset forfeiture are never charged.

Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Not necessarily. The 4th Amendment categorically does not prohibit reasonable searches and seizures. Courts have ruled that asset forfeiture laws are not violations of the 4th, even though they probably should have, because courts say that if the cops have probable cause to believe that the money is drug-related than it proper to seize it as fruits of crime. And in theory, asset forfeiture laws make at least some sense; a millionaire crime kingpin shouldn't be able to go to prison, then leave and go right back to his millionaire lifestyle. However, in practice, the laws are almost never used the way they were intended, and both crooked and clean cops abuse the system and lie in order to get money for their departments, because the incentives are just so damn bad.

The millionaire crime kingpin you mentioned would have been convicted of a crime and the forteiture would have been part of his sentence. The cops are using this law against people who have never been charged with a crime.

dustman81:

The millionaire crime kingpin you mentioned would have been convicted of a crime and the forteiture would have been part of his sentence. The cops are using this law against people who have never been charged with a crime.

Exactly. Note the last sentence I wrote. I disagree strongly with the use of civil asset forfeiture and think that the incentives are so incredibly in favor of abuse that the entire system should be scrapped. But that doesn't mean that the policy as it was originally envisioned is unconstitutional, or that there are not at least some good reasons to having it in the first place.

And no, the millionaire kingpins often do not have their property seized as part of the sentence. Often they've got good enough lawyers that they can avoid that, or the FBI can only get them for a small crime that has a maximum penalty far smaller than their assets. But again, that's the outlier and not what the law is actually used for.

dustman81: I wonder if the Justice Department knows about this county's bail scam.

FTFA: But in all states, police agencies can contact the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), making the case federal, and under federal law, local police departments can keep up to 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds, with the rest going to the Department of Justice. The institute reports that between 2000 and 2008, police agencies in Wisconsin took in $50 million from this "equitable sharing" program with the federal government. According to Williams, the DEA recently filed a claim on Zamora's money in federal court, to take possession of the money through federal civil asset forfeiture laws.

I'd say they have full comprehension, yes.

dustman81: Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

I don't disagree, but I think the work-around they've got here is they charge the property with the crime. Property doesn't have constitutional rights.

It's complete bullshiat, but that's how I understand it works. IANAL, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, etc.

Aint America wonderful?

FREEDOM

Benevolent Misanthrope: dustman81: I wonder if the Justice Department knows about this county's bail scam.

FTFA: But in all states, police agencies can contact the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), making the case federal, and under federal law, local police departments can keep up to 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds, with the rest going to the Department of Justice. The institute reports that between 2000 and 2008, police agencies in Wisconsin took in $50 million from this "equitable sharing" program with the federal government. According to Williams, the DEA recently filed a claim on Zamora's money in federal court, to take possession of the money through federal civil asset forfeiture laws.

I'd say they have full comprehension, yes.

Yep.

Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with this.

GAT_00: Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with this.

so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

time for the family to contact the ACLU. family has a case. in fact, if the kid cant make bail, then the kid cant work on his defense and will have his case tossed on appeal.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

We wouldn't hate the cops so much if they didn't steal our cash, Mo. Any cop anywhere in America can take all your cash, and good luck getting it back. That used to be called "theft".

dustman81: Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

I don't know that I agree with your reasoning using the 4th amendment but I could not possibly agree more with you that civil asset forfeiture law are a terrible farking plague on our country. Guilty until you spend the time and money to prove yourself innocent. Frickin sweet.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

I don't know that this is where you want to hang your "stop hating on cops" hat.

The woman's son is a hoodie-wearing Blah person, so of course the Fark Republicans will argue that a thug is being kept off the streets.

"It took four months for Beverly Greer to get her family's money back, and then only after attorney Andy Williams agreed to take their case."



Don't fark with Andy Williams.

namatad: so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

Sure seems that way. Let's add some citations to the thread that subby alluded to:

Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with cocaine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject.

Link

So you must pay $7,500 cash only. And only 10% of bills are cocaine free. Good luck, citizen.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

I am extremely pro-cop but those officers are just being complete dickholes.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Won't someone please think of the poor jackboots!

And I bet all the cops retire at six figure salaries. Police chief is probably a millionaire. Some of these counties are best described as warlords.

namatad: GAT_00: Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with this.

so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

time for the family to contact the ACLU. family has a case. in fact, if the kid cant make bail, then the kid cant work on his defense and will have his case tossed on appeal.

They could barely get it the first time and the cops seized it and you're asking can they still make bail?

Here's a CNN article about traces of drugs on money from 2009. I seem to remember similar articles coming out every few years since the early 90's. A good attorney should be able to get this turned around and then counter-sue for legal/court costs.

Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

I get that you're trolling. Still... Really?

How is this cop hate?

Kate Spangler can crash on my couch anytime...

GAT_00: namatad: GAT_00: Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with this.

so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

time for the family to contact the ACLU. family has a case. in fact, if the kid cant make bail, then the kid cant work on his defense and will have his case tossed on appeal.

They could barely get it the first time and the cops seized it and you're asking can they still make bail?

I wonder what percentage each guy involved with a scam like this gets to keep? Finder's fees, etc?

Runs_With_Scissors_: Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

I get that you're trolling. Still... Really?

How is this cop hate?


Fine, I'll start.


Nail their dicks to a tree (if you can find them), light the farker on fire and give him a butter knife.

Everyone of the cops in this story deserve to be bled.

Runs_With_Scissors_: Lando Lincoln: Yay! Our daily cop hate thread. I was worried we'd take Sunday off.

I get that you're trolling. Still... Really?

How is this cop hate?

the cops are acting like cops and we are hating them for it. its pretty straight forward.

Said it before, I'll say it until I die: Kill a cop/judge/DA, do your county and country a HUGE favor.

/cops, judges, DA's, politicians = dogsh*t.

Long ago I stated that "any law that can be abused by the government WILL be abused by the government". Asset forfeiture is the perfect example. Another example of this is "hate speech". When they (the government) gets to define what is considered hate speech, suddenly just disagreeing with someone can become illegal.

lennavan: namatad: so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

Sure seems that way. Let's add some citations to the thread that subby alluded to:

Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with cocaine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject.

Link

So you must pay $7,500 cash only. And only 10% of bills are cocaine free. Good luck, citizen.

Pretty scary stuff. It wouldn't have occurred to me that I'd need to run cash through the wash before taking it to the station to bail out a relative or friend.

atomic-age: lennavan: namatad: so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

Sure seems that way. Let's add some citations to the thread that subby alluded to:

Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with cocaine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject.

Link

So you must pay $7,500 cash only. And only 10% of bills are cocaine free. Good luck, citizen.

Pretty scary stuff. It wouldn't have occurred to me that I'd need to run cash through the wash before taking it to the station to bail out a relative or friend.

Laundering money is illegal.

/groan

Cash... it's a hell of a drug.

I'm starting to wonder about freedom in America. What great rights or freedoms do we hold above other first world countries out there? France, Canada, England, Spain? Guns I guess.

atomic-age: lennavan: namatad: so what the cops are saying is that there is NO WAY for this guy to make bail??
that is the most farked up part.

Sure seems that way. Let's add some citations to the thread that subby alluded to:

Nearly nine out of ten bills circulating in the U.S. and its northern neighbor are tainted with cocaine, according to what's being called the most definitive research to date on the subject.

Link

So you must pay $7,500 cash only. And only 10% of bills are cocaine free. Good luck, citizen.

Pretty scary stuff. It wouldn't have occurred to me that I'd need to run cash through the wash before taking it to the station to bail out a relative or friend.

Even if you did that, when the dog didn't alert they would just make it 'alert' Then your cash is mixed in with the rest of the bills and contaminated.

But you deserve it because of drugs or something.

There are no laws in this country that criminalize "hate speech". At least none that can survive constitutional scrutiny.

You are conflating hate CRIME laws -- which serve a legitimate purpose -- with what is basically a fiction.

gilgigamesh: There are no laws in this country that criminalize "hate speech". At least none that can survive constitutional scrutiny.

You are conflating hate CRIME laws -- which serve a legitimate purpose -- with what is basically a fiction.

I got to say I don't get hate crime laws. If I kill someone, does it really matter if I killed them for money or because they're blah or whatever? I killed them. That's a crime.

St_Francis_P: NowhereMon: She should have written a check

She couldn't:

"The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."
The police do not have that authority, if the law provides for other means of payment. So, she should have checked the law and then brought in a copy of the law and the accepted means of payment. In other words, if the law specifically states that she can use a cashier's check then she should have brought in a cashier's check and a copy of the law. If the police then refused to accept the cashier's check she should have then presented them with a copy of the law.

This is clearly a case where the police were counting on confiscating the money. They figured that because the guy was arrested on narcotics charges that any bail money would be "drug money" and that it would be free money to add to their coffers. The money should file a complaint with the ACLU and the Department of Justice.

Because when I sell drugs, I make sure to rub the money alllll over the drugs before I hand over the goods.

/I do NOT sell drugs, fyi.

That's éclair, with an é, Subby. Go and learn proper English.

ghare: gilgigamesh: There are no laws in this country that criminalize "hate speech". At least none that can survive constitutional scrutiny.

You are conflating hate CRIME laws -- which serve a legitimate purpose -- with what is basically a fiction.

I got to say I don't get hate crime laws. If I kill someone, does it really matter if I killed them for money or because they're blah or whatever? I killed them. That's a crime.

the theory is that if the murder was racially motivated or whatever its also a crime against the wider community. essentially a a threat to keep your head down of you'll get killed too.

St_Francis_P: NowhereMon: She should have written a check

She couldn't:

"The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

Because cash is almost impossible to trace and we know the cops love their bribes

dustman81: Civil asset forteiture laws are a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No they are not. How they are used determines their Constitutionality. If the search and seizure are reasonable and legal then they are not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Alleyoop: "It took four months for Beverly Greer to get her family's money back, and then only after attorney Andy Williams agreed to take their case."

[images.contactmusic.com image 300x300]

Don't fark with Andy Williams.

I didn't think he was going to take the case, but then BAM, second encore!

And cops wonder why the citizenry does not like them.

I know a lot of current and reitred law enforcement officers. For the most part they are great people. But every once in a while I meet one that should have their ass kicked up between their shoulder blades.