Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: timsatx on May 19, 2011, 06:29:26 AM
-
Tennesee Law Enforcement Stealing Money from out of state innocent motorist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTeH9D_tN-k#ws)
-
That is just not right, I don't care who you are.
-
NC and several other states have similar laws, all that is required to get the money back is to show where it came from. A lot of the money siezed for possible relations to drug money is never claimed again by the person it was removed from, nor do they come back and try and claim it. Usually if our department finds a large stash of money, especially as this video showed, wrapped in a lot of plastic, our Drug dog is called in for the search many many times the dog hits on the money and finds drugs. I-40, I-95 and US-1 are major drug running routes, the mules will transfer money from NYC to Florida and return with the drugs. Not saying I agree with it, just giving a more open view than the lovely news media does. And even in the video, the guy came a claimed his 18 wheeler, couldn't say how he got the money though.
-
The owner of the money has to show where it came from? What a crock! It's none of anyone's business where MY money came from. Kind of flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty doesn't it?
-
I was investigated for too much cash. I was making really good money in Chicago and because my home town bank was closed by the time I commuted home, I would use currency exchanges or check cashing businesses. Then I would drive home to another state. Once a month or so I would put 3 or 4 grand of cash in the bank. (I was a bachelor with no debt, so I didn't spend much) I was called and commanded to meet with some state revenue officials. I guess the bank must have called them. I showed the investigators my check stubs and gave them the addresses of the currency exchanges where I cashed my checks. They were satisfied and showed me the door. Even 25 years ago, having cash was considered out of the ordinary. The whole nation would be in better shape today if everyone, including the government operated on a cash basis.
-
Yet it was okay for a politician to have $90k stashed in his freezer.
-
I was investigated for too much cash. I was making really good money in Chicago and because my home town bank was closed by the time I commuted home, I would use currency exchanges or check cashing businesses. Then I would drive home to another state. Once a month or so I would put 3 or 4 grand of cash in the bank. (I was a bachelor with no debt, so I didn't spend much) I was called and commanded to meet with some state revenue officials. I guess the bank must have called them. I showed the investigators my check stubs and gave them the addresses of the currency exchanges where I cashed my checks. They were satisfied and showed me the door. Even 25 years ago, having cash was considered out of the ordinary. The whole nation would be in better shape today if everyone, including the government operated on a cash basis.
Agreed. Again, not saying I agree with the law, just trying to give a little insight.
-
If the government wants to keep money illegally gotten through the drug trade the burden of proof should certainly be on the government. But I think the big problem here is the conflict of interest. The agency or jurisdiction that makes the find in any seizure case should NEVER be allowed to keep the loot. This creates a conflict of interest and can be very corrupting influence on our law enforcement system. The disposition of any seizure proceeds should be completely isolated from any jurisdiction or control of law enforcement.
-
And I agree with that. I think the only time the agency should be able to keep the cash is when in court, it is proven that the money/house/car what ever came directly from drug proceeds and or was used in the manufacturing of drugs. Cash seized on the road is a dangerous slope.
-
Yet it was okay for a politician to have $90k stashed in his freezer.
OK as in "he was arrested and charged"?
-
OK as in "he was arrested and charged"?
I don't know if he ever was but every Democrat politician rushed to his defense.
-
NC and several other states have similar laws, all that is required to get the money back is to show where it came from. A lot of the money siezed for possible relations to drug money is never claimed again by the person it was removed from, nor do they come back and try and claim it. Usually if our department finds a large stash of money, especially as this video showed, wrapped in a lot of plastic, our Drug dog is called in for the search many many times the dog hits on the money and finds drugs.
Of course the dogs will hit on the cash...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cocaine-contaminates-majority-of-american-currency (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cocaine-contaminates-majority-of-american-currency)
Letting the department keep the cash it confiscates creates a conflict of interest... this needs to stop.
-
And I agree with that. I think the only time the agency should be able to keep the cash is when in court, it is proven that the money/house/car what ever came directly from drug proceeds and or was used in the manufacturing of drugs. Cash seized on the road is a dangerous slope.
No law enforcement agency should be able to keep cash or property seized as a result of any drug operation, every single cent needs to go to charitable organizations - period. The DEA is one of the most corrupt agencies in the Federal Government. They go after operations with the most assets, not the most drugs. They can't knock 'em all out of business or it would dry up the incentive to bust these guys. As the video shows, there is ten times more attention paid to the cash flow side of operations than the drug trafficking side. And they had the absolute freaking gall to try to convince the reporter that their true goal was to stop drug trafficking. Do they really think that we are THAT stupid?
The last time I looked the possession of cash (no matter how much) is perfectly legal. Any law enforcement officer who seizes cash without a warrant or just cause should be removed from law enforcement. This includes the management.
JMHO
Dan
-
Part of the problem is, no matter ho much money we give to the school systems from drug seizures (cars and houses auctioned) law enforcement agencies still fight for their budget. A very large amount of the drug money we seize goes to pay for equipement such as new radios so we can actually hear each other, new vests and helmets, even new guns. Find enough money to pay for the gear and equipement we need so we are not constantly fighting budget cuts and the money seized can go elsewhere. Again not saying I think cash seized should stay with the seizing department but something has got to give somewhere to fix it. Also wanted to make the correction in my earlier post, cars, houses, other toys seized by our agency all get auctioned off and the money goes to the school system. Cash we seize as part of a drug investigation when proven to be part of a drug operation, if it is not seized by the State or the feds we keep. NC has some goofy damn tax laws for drug dealers and the state will seize the funds for taxes owed for not paying your taxes on your illegal drugs.
-
I can solve this issue.....All cash siezed needs to be sent to an uninvolved third party. ME! I will disperse said funds with out anyone's involvement and in accordinance with all applicable laws. But wait there's more!! I will give up the time needed to complete these tasks for a nominal fee of .5 percent of said moneys.
If that isn't acceptable than a fund should be set up to disperse the cash at something similar to the following:
50% distibuted throughout the public school system nationwide
30% to hospitals nationwide
10% to community outreach programs nationwide
5% to Kansas so they can ship in dirt and make some hills and twisties
3% to Veteran's benefit organizations
2% to me because no one was smart enough to accept the original offer!