When the Sheriff Takes Your Money

[oldtoyota]

A few months ago, I posted an article--can't find it here now--that discussed civil forfeiture, which is scary for the innocent.

IIRC, it was either The Atlantic or Harper's that had an article about police who would stop people on the highway and take their money due to "drugs." In one case, parents were threatened that their child would be put into foster care.

Now, there's a sheriff out in NV doing what looks like the same thing. The sheriff said he has reasons for stopping the people and taking their money…

"A rural Nevada sheriff is defending the practice of stopping suspected drug traffickers on US Interstate 80 and confiscating tens of thousands of dollars even if no criminal charges are filed.

Reports that two men had filed lawsuits in federal court against the county stirred concerns among Humboldt County residents that deputies are making illegal searches and seizures along I-80 in the high desert near Winnemucca about 165 miles east of Reno.

Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore said he can't discuss case details, but he wants to assure residents the stops are legal and not intended to shake down unsuspecting visitors. He said that civil forfeitures are legal if an arresting officer suspects the individual obtained — or intends to use — the money illegally."

So, it sounds like the law can take your money if they think you will use it illegally.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0313/I-80-drug-stops-defended-by-Nevada-sheriff

[BlueMR2]

Civil forfeiture is such a mess. And by mess, I mean "obscenity."

Indeed.  How it ever became legal, I'll never figure out.  Any time you allow someone to seize assets based on simply what they think, no questions ask, then they're also allowed to benefit from having those assets, there will be problems with corruption.  No institution is exempt from having bad apples that will take advantage of those powers.  It's bad enough to occasionally hear about judges and LEOs working hand in hand to steal from the public, but when LEOs have no oversight at all, how can it possible be a good thing?

[randymarsh]

It should be obvious that policing for profit will create corruption. We need serious reform.

Here's another case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz#Motel_Caswell_confiscation_case

There's a longer write up on the Atlantic or another site I think. I also read that a former DEA agent said they specifically looked for properties that no longer had a mortgage. Outrageous.

Confiscation isn't going to reduce the sale of drugs anyway. If you take a drug dealer's money, they're just going to sell more drugs. Duh.

[golfer44]

This stuff is just maddening. Truly, truly maddening.

[MooseOutFront]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

[NumberJohnny5]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

Insane. There's multiple times I've needed to carry more than $1k in cash. Once was when I went to pick up a new (used) van, on a Sunday. Yeah, carrying $5k on a Greyhound bus may not have been the smartest thing I've ever done, but still...I had a legit reason. I could easily prove that I didn't get that money from drugs (well officer, here's my bank statement...suspiciously void of cash deposits, just direct deposits and a large withdrawal yesterday, in the exact amount I have with me)...but I'm supposed to prove I wouldn't use it to buy drugs? How could I do that? I mean, if they ride with me to where I make the purchase, sure...but that ain't gonna happen.

[golfer44]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

And you're ok with this?

[TomTX]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

Probably the same outfit that will only take cash for bail money as well.

[EMP]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

Ahhh...Texas.  Where just about everyone has a gun and you can go to jail for ...jaywalking.

http://kxan.com/2014/02/21/jogger-arrested-after-being-stopped-for-jaywalking-sparks-outrage-across-campus/

But it's cool, because, "Cops are actually committing sexual assaults on duty so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in Austin, Tex." - police chief Art Acevedo in response to the above incident. 

[randymarsh]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

It's great that law enforcement has decided they should take people's property and cash based on assumptions they "figure". He's got the whole proof thing backwards. I shouldn't have to prove my money is "clean". They should have to prove it's dirty. I guess he missed the whole innocent until proven guilty concept...one of the defining features of our justice system.

[oldtoyota]

Another case would be if your teenager lights up an illegal substance on your porch. Your house can be taken away from you even though you, the owner, did not break the law.

The article I posted quotes some people from the small town with the sheriff in question. They are VERY careful about how they talk about him. It's pretty interesting. In a big city--where one sheriff has a lot less power--people would be scathing, I'm sure.

[Norrie]

This is scary as hell, and something that I wouldn't be shocked to have happen in this state.

The article I posted quotes some people from the small town with the sheriff in question. They are VERY careful about how they talk about him. It's pretty interesting. In a big city--where one sheriff has a lot less power--people would be scathing, I'm sure.

A few years ago I facilitated about 20 focus groups across Oklahoma, and in one tiny town learned of absolutely horrific Medicaid fraud and abuse by a doctor. Each participant in the group spoke of it, and when I was like, "why don't you report him and find another doctor?!", they reminded me that he was the only doctor in town accepting Medicaid for pediatric patients. They too were very cautious about talking about him, even though he was a full on asshole. That group taught me a lot about the kinds of power that those in certain positions hold in tiny towns, and I can imagine that is especially true for a sheriff.

[Eric]

Another case would be if your teenager lights up an illegal substance on your porch. Your house can be taken away from you even though you, the owner, did not break the law.

I don't think this is true.  Isn't property forfeiture is only for growing, or possibly dealing, not personal usage?

[Eric]

Also, Fuck the Police

[MooseOutFront]

I volunteer for a local organization and one of my shifts was with the sheriff for the neighboring county.  He told me they take the cash from traffic stops any time it's over $1000 and sometimes less.  Figures it's always drug money on one end or the other and nobody ever shows back up to prove they got it legally.  That's his perspective.

And you're ok with this?

No. It's sickening.  And my guess is his most common victims are illegals that get paid in cash and always have it on their person.  These people wouldn't even know where to begin to challenge the legal system to get their cash back.  He funds his whole drug task force with seizures.

[randymarsh]

Another case would be if your teenager lights up an illegal substance on your porch. Your house can be taken away from you even though you, the owner, did not break the law.

I don't think this is true.  Isn't property forfeiture is only for growing, or possibly dealing, not personal usage?

I doubt just consumption would get very far. But a high schooler or college student selling dime bags out of their parents' home. I'm sure there are police willing to "get tough on crime". The department needs a new tank!

[MrCash]

Holey moley!  I had no idea.  I'm going to need to read through all of this carefully.

[Boz86]

And they could just seize all a defendant's money so they can't afford good legal representation, according to a new Supreme's ruling:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/kaley_v_united_states_terrible_supreme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html

[MrFancypants]

And they could just seize all a defendant's money so they can't afford good legal representation, according to a new Supreme's ruling:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/kaley_v_united_states_terrible_supreme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html

This is unreal.

[oldtoyota]

Another case would be if your teenager lights up an illegal substance on your porch. Your house can be taken away from you even though you, the owner, did not break the law.

I don't think this is true.  Isn't property forfeiture is only for growing, or possibly dealing, not personal usage?

Nope. I think you are thinking of criminal forfeiture. We're talking about civil forfeiture. You do not have to be guilty to have your property taken:

"In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

[Eric]

Another case would be if your teenager lights up an illegal substance on your porch. Your house can be taken away from you even though you, the owner, did not break the law.

I don't think this is true.  Isn't property forfeiture is only for growing, or possibly dealing, not personal usage?

Nope. I think you are thinking of criminal forfeiture. We're talking about civil forfeiture. You do not have to be guilty to have your property taken:

"In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

I sat here and read that whole thing like I was watching the aftermath of a traffic accident.  Terrifiying and amazing at the same time and I couldn't look away.

[Jack]

I think any so-called "law enforcement officer" who participates in civil forfeiture deserves to be shot dead. And if a victim of civil forfeiture were put on trial for doing so and I were on his jury, I would not only refuse to convict, but would shake his hand and thank him afterwards for his public service.

It is a simple matter of self defense against a criminal; the only difference is the criminal happens to be wearing a badge.

[wtjbatman]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal. If you have a problem with the law, get it changed.

[Eric]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal. If you have a problem with the law, get it changed.

Morally and ethically bankrupt cops may be within the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.  Targeting poor minorities because they don't have the means to fight back in order to fund their bloated departmental budgets is pretty much the definition of scumbag behavior.  It's not the law that's broken, it's the people applying it.

[Jack]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal.

Ah, the Nuremburg defense. As despicable now as it was back then, and still just as [in]valid.

If you have a problem with the law, get it changed.

Is that not what I just suggested? I think in fact it was; specifically, boxes three and four.

[wtjbatman]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal. If you have a problem with the law, get it changed.

Morally and ethically bankrupt cops may be within the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.  Targeting poor minorities because they don't have the means to fight back in order to fund their bloated departmental budgets is pretty much the definition of scumbag behavior.  It's not the law that's broken, it's the people applying it.

I wasn't talking about "morally and ethically bankrupt cops", I was responding to Jack who said that LEO's who participate in civil forfeiture deserve to be shot dead. None of the officers I know who I went to school with or worked with are morally and ethically bankrupt, even the ones who have had to perform civil seizure (primarily the DNR guy).

Not saying abuse doesn't happen. But let's rein in the whole "shoot them dead" talk.

[wtjbatman]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal.

Ah, the Nuremburg defense. As despicable now as it was back then, and still just as [in]valid.

And Godwin's Law makes a not too surprising appearance, although perhaps a little bit earlier than I expected.

[DoubleDown]

On a related note, as reported by the Washington Post the other day: There was a bank robbery in suburban Wash. DC (Maryland) a couple of days ago, on a weekday morning. For 45 minutes, the police shut down the beltway (the major interstate highway here), holding up hundreds of thousands of commuters during rush hour. As they held traffic, police officers with guns drawn went from car to car ordering the occupants to "pop the trunk" as they hunted for the bank robbers. I saw in the Post a photo of one of the officers walking through traffic holding his assault rifle.

Apparently, it's also now okay for the police to conduct blanket searches on thousands of people without probable cause, with a display of lethal force. I wonder if even one person thought to tell them "No, you're not searching my car" or asked them to produce their search warrant. I doubt it.

But they did catch the (alleged) bank robbers, so I guess it's all good. That 4th amendment is probably overrated anyway.

[Jack]

And Godwin's Law makes a not too surprising appearance, although perhaps a little bit earlier than I expected.

It's not Godwin's Law if it's on-topic, and "Nuremburg Defense" is a common name for the theory that people in a chain of command can escape responsibility by claiming to be "just following orders." It's not my fault that it was most famously relevant to NAZIs.

[oldtoyota]

On a related note, as reported by the Washington Post the other day: There was a bank robbery in suburban Wash. DC (Maryland) a couple of days ago, on a weekday morning. For 45 minutes, the police shut down the beltway (the major interstate highway here), holding up hundreds of thousands of commuters during rush hour. As they held traffic, police officers with guns drawn went from car to car ordering the occupants to "pop the trunk" as they hunted for the bank robbers. I saw in the Post a photo of one of the officers walking through traffic holding his assault rifle.

Apparently, it's also now okay for the police to conduct blanket searches on thousands of people without probable cause, with a display of lethal force. I wonder if even one person thought to tell them "No, you're not searching my car" or asked them to produce their search warrant. I doubt it.

But they did catch the (alleged) bank robbers, so I guess it's all good. That 4th amendment is probably overrated anyway.

Removal of the 4th amendment is being normalized as far as I can tell. Look at how everyone is searched before getting onto an airplane...even though that has not been proven to stop a darned thing.

[randymarsh]

Apparently, it's also now okay for the police to conduct blanket searches on thousands of people without probable cause, with a display of lethal force. I wonder if even one person thought to tell them "No, you're not searching my car" or asked them to produce their search warrant. I doubt it.

But they did catch the (alleged) bank robbers, so I guess it's all good. That 4th amendment is probably overrated anyway.

Even if the drivers did, the police would search anyway and/or they'd be arrested for "disorderly conduct" or some other BS charge. They'd probably bring out a K9 unit and of course the dog would alert.

Look at what happened after the Boston Marathon bombing. They basically shut down a major US city and went door to door asking/demanding to search people's homes. People still driving/walking were stopped and treated like scum.

[MooseOutFront]

Those K9 units are very reliable assistants when you want to search but just don't quite have that PC you needed yet.

[EMP]

Also, Fuck the Police

<3 NWA

this thread makes me so sad.

[AlanStache]

Does anyone think the War on Drugs is anything but BS at this point?

We are so fucked in so many ways.  Wish I could have mmm's optimism. 

I did not know dogs could be trained to detect cash, but I guess cash does have traces of drugs so maybe they could detect it...

[jpo]

Removal of the 4th amendment is being normalized as far as I can tell. Look at how everyone is searched before getting onto an airplane...even though that has not been proven to stop a darned thing.

Seems to me that by purchasing a plane ticket you are agreeing to the terms of service of that airline, which now include personal searches.

I would expect it's a different issue entirely if you are traveling in your own personal vehicle.

[oldtoyota]

Removal of the 4th amendment is being normalized as far as I can tell. Look at how everyone is searched before getting onto an airplane...even though that has not been proven to stop a darned thing.

Seems to me that by purchasing a plane ticket you are agreeing to the terms of service of that airline, which now include personal searches.

I would expect it's a different issue entirely if you are traveling in your own personal vehicle.

See what I mean? It's already being normalized if people think that.

The problem with that is the presumption that I am guilty because I bought a plane ticket. Presuming millions of people are guilty because they are flying somewhere is not "intelligence" as far as I have ever understood the word.

You can be searched if you are traveling via bus, train, personal truck or personal car. Google "VIPR." Or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team

and

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/like-tsa-youll-love-vipr/247221/

Curious...Would you do anything asked of you in the name of "security"? Consent to the search of your body, your home, your car, your luggage without probable cause? From the examples given above, it's looking like you won't have any choice soon enough.

Follow the money. People make money off of security. Look at the prices of the machines and who is selling them and how the CEOs are riding on the planes of certain world leaders...

Consider all that and think about it the next time you are removing your shoes for no reason. =-)

If you are wealthy enough to own or charter your own plane, you do not go through security. You can take whatever you want--all the "dangerous" jam, water, and breast milk you can stand. =-)

[randomstring]

I'd be interested in learning how one can protect family assets from being frozen/seized in case of criminal charge and/or suspicion. Is there a way? Set up a trust? LLC? Something else?

It seems that for any high profile case, it is common for the prosecution to demand that defendant's assets are to be frozen (here's one example: http://federalcrimesblog.com/2013/07/01/us-supreme-court-to-consider-florida-couples-fight-to-use-frozen-assets-for-criminal-defense/) . This can seriously interfere with your ability to hire well qualified defense.

[marty998]

Does anyone think the War on Drugs is anything but BS at this point?

We are so fucked in so many ways.  Wish I could have mmm's optimism. 

I did not know dogs could be trained to detect cash, but I guess cash does have traces of drugs so maybe they could detect it...

I think the dogs a trained to recognise the chemicals or ink that goes into each bill.

But I did hear a theory once that every $100 bill in America has traces of cocaine on it so you could very well be right.

[BlueMR2]

I would expect it's a different issue entirely if you are traveling in your own personal vehicle.

See: http://generalaviationnews.com/2013/06/20/aopa-issues-checklist-what-to-do-if-stopped-by-law-enforcement/

[Vjklander]

If the Officer is enforcing the law and carrying out his legal duties, he's not a criminal. If you have a problem with the law, get it changed.

Morally and ethically bankrupt cops may be within the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.  Targeting poor minorities because they don't have the means to fight back in order to fund their bloated departmental budgets is pretty much the definition of scumbag behavior.  It's not the law that's broken, it's the people applying it.

I wasn't talking about "morally and ethically bankrupt cops", I was responding to Jack who said that LEO's who participate in civil forfeiture deserve to be shot dead. None of the officers I know who I went to school with or worked with are morally and ethically bankrupt, even the ones who have had to perform civil seizure (primarily the DNR guy).

Not saying abuse doesn't happen. But let's rein in the whole "shoot them dead" talk.

I agree, shoot them dead is a little over the top. Nevertheless, every cop in the USA is a pompous arrogant egomaniacal control freak. I despise every one of them. Period.
Vjk

[Vjklander]

And people wonder why I am a flaming Libertarian.

[Blindsquirrel]

 Sadly, no shock at all. The corrupt and violent police forces in the USA are way out of control. If you want an honest article on what they are up to on a daily basis, please see  http://www.policemisconduct.net/    It will hack you off to see our tax dollars in action.

[iwasjustwondering]

Re Godwin's Law: If you're actually defending fascism, maybe don't be so surprised when people mention, um, fascism.

[golfer44]

Re Godwin's Law: If you're actually defending fascism, maybe don't be so surprised when people mention, um, fascism.

Lol!

[seattlecyclone]

Civil asset forfeiture is a completely backwards practice. If you contest the forfeiture in court and actually win, do you think the government is going to pay your attorney's fees? Of course not. Thus a police officer can seize amounts of up to a few thousand dollars with absolute impunity; the reason people don't fight these seizures very often isn't necessarily because they're guilty, but because the legal representation to get their stuff back would cost more than the value of the property seized.

[lithy]

Removal of the 4th amendment is being normalized as far as I can tell. Look at how everyone is searched before getting onto an airplane...even though that has not been proven to stop a darned thing.

Seems to me that by purchasing a plane ticket you are agreeing to the terms of service of that airline, which now include personal searches.

I would expect it's a different issue entirely if you are traveling in your own personal vehicle.

The airports and airlines are not the ones mandating or operating the searches, the government, specifically the TSA is, which makes it a civil liberties issue.

[Jack]

Does anyone think the War on Drugs is anything but BS at this point?

We are so fucked in so many ways.  Wish I could have mmm's optimism. 

I did not know dogs could be trained to detect cash, but I guess cash does have traces of drugs so maybe they could detect it...

I think the dogs a trained to recognise the chemicals or ink that goes into each bill.

But I did hear a theory once that every $100 bill in America has traces of cocaine on it so you could very well be right.

The dogs are trained to detect drugs, but their natural instinct is to please their master. They are reasonably likely to alert just because the cop seems to want to find something, whether they themselves think there are drugs or not.

And then on top of that, there are also lots of false positives just due to the rules of probability:

With a pretty good dog, but a largely innocent population, a dog alert will signal drugs only about sixteen percent of the time. The reason is this: Because the officer is stopping mostly innocent people, one has to be more concerned about the false positive error (alerting when there are no drugs). Because there are more cars without drugs in them, the gross number of searches that result from the error rate will be higher than the gross number of searches that result from correct alerts. Overall, there will be many more searches of innocent people than there will be searches of guilty people.

[oldtoyota]

Removal of the 4th amendment is being normalized as far as I can tell. Look at how everyone is searched before getting onto an airplane...even though that has not been proven to stop a darned thing.

Seems to me that by purchasing a plane ticket you are agreeing to the terms of service of that airline, which now include personal searches.

I would expect it's a different issue entirely if you are traveling in your own personal vehicle.

The airports and airlines are not the ones mandating or operating the searches, the government, specifically the TSA is, which makes it a civil liberties issue.

Exactly.

I see smart people. =-)

[GuitarStv]

I get the outrage over the seizure of large amounts of money with little apparent cause.  There's some tremendous potential for abuse, and the whole thing smells rotten.  That said . . .


The originally posted article does mention that one guy was driving around with a briefcase filled with 50,000$ cash.  I'm trying to think of the legitimate reasons you would have to carry that much cash on you while driving around and drawing somewhat of a blank.

[AlanStache]

in Zimbabwe 50,000 cash wont buy a sick of gum.

Could be one of those guys that buys houses on the spot, gambling winnings, going to get something off craigslist or IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER.  In the US we are allowed to do things without demonstrating a reason (YMMV ... apparently...).  Maybe he just wanted to feel like a bad-ass.