Same type person that buys a tesla and puts carbon free lic plates on it...... Or didn't want to deal with TSA highly educated and well trained screening branch, and the 100 plus legitimate and not legitimate reasons... Basically who knows.

With that said, I know a few guys that roll with a lot of cash, per the ideology of what a criminal looks like, I'm sure they would get highly questioned, pretty sure they have. Hell one of them has his own helicopter, and is a good old boy, w/a full sleeve tattoos.

To me this thread is a fine line, two sides that are both right and wrong. I see both sides very clear. One sides smells a rat, because they been fighting rats most of their life, the other side is getting real sick of an over stepping Gov.

Probably several people on the forum that have extremely expensive O/U shotguns or guns in general that fly with them all the time, and we would give no second thought

nacho money

If a crime is being committed or suspected, then an arrest should be made.
Pending charges being filed and the trial outcome, assets should be returned or not.

Seizing assets under civil forfeiture rules, bypasses due process. Handy shortcut, but a dangerous path.

The truth is in the. Pudding.

Well stated Bobo.
I’m not passing judgement either. I don’t have all the details. First impression casts a bad light on the law enforcement that took her money if no laws were broken. Hopefully there is more than meets the eye here.

There has to be due process. That's my bottom line.

When an LEO takes something from a suspect, the LEO suspects a crime.

Arrest the person as you suspect them of committing a crime.

Period.



If the person could commit a crime with the money or asset, let them commit the crime and then arrest them for committing the crime.

Isn’t that what the courts demand? A suit can’t be brought to the Supreme Court or otherwise unless there has been a clear impact that is unconstitutional. We’ve seen this a bunch over the past 12 months with cases being thrown out “without standing” because the threat of a potential unconstitutional outcome was not great enough to argue — it had to actually happen.

What's going on here? From the article linked below:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit actually prohibits seizure based solely on a drug sniffing dog in a 1994 case."

https://thelibertyloft.com/2021/12/11/civil-asset-forfeiture-just-another-way-the-government-steals/

I must say a lot of y’all crack me up. The 100k I seized I determined on the side of the road with the tools I have (tools and software y’all know nothing about) that the money was illegal and profits from narcotic sales. Two nights ago I found 8k in a sock in a woman’s purse. And I only know it’s 8k because I asked, I didn’t even count it. I knew based on everything I had asked that the money was legitimate. Y’all can bash us and what we do all you want but I will continue to hold my head high and know that the decisions I make are the right decisions or the best decision I can make with the information I have. We don’t just take money (no matter the amount) without good damn reason. There’s a reason the guys didn’t fight for their 100k back…it’s called collateral damage and they expect it when it’s a DTO. I feel the same way you guys do about the government and where we are headed but please trust us know that we (me specifically) are doing all we can to put bad people in jail. We can’t get them all but if no one tries can you imagine how bad it would really be.

If we crack you up, it seems that you are missing the whole point and taking it personally. I don't hear anyone challenging the effectiveness in stopping bad guys. I am willing to bet that the success rate is extremely high and "bad" cases are a very, very small percentage.

But - once experience, training, tools and software are considered good enough to bypass due process, the road gets ugly. If you are familiar with it, think about the Patriot Act and how it is being used as we converse.

Help me understand what I am missing.

Marc

Marc I try hard not to take it personal and I try to remember that no one knows how we come to the conclusions we come to if they don’t do what we do. I can’t speak for what happens after they’re arrested unless I’m called to testify but that’s never happened on an asset seizure. I’m not mad, but it seems to me that the other side sees it as a bunch of cops taking peoples money for no reason and possibly even taking some of it in our pocket (as stated earlier). That’s the part that really sucks to read or hear. Especially coming off this forum.

Help me understand where due process is bypassed. Officers seize suspected laundered/illicit money, a trial date is set, a trial is held, a court determines who gets the money. Sounds like the definition of due process. Police don't let people hold on to suspected drugs pending a trial, they are seized also. What am I missing, Marc?

Yes, the point is this little thing called "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Civil asset forfeiture bypasses due process, trial, etc. and places the burden on the accused to recover their property.

Ok so they go to jail and get a bond (which is based on several factors and not considered punishment) and come to trial and I come to trial and I bring my evidence and report which states why I did what I did and I prove they’re guilty.

What makes you think that being arrested for money laundering doesn’t get due process and a trial? It’s a criminal charge just like possession of a controlled substance or assault or dwi or 1,000 other criminal offenses.

For starters cash is not illegal, no matter how much people want it to be, cash by itself with no other proof of a crime is not illegal. So it's nothing like holding on to a suspects drugs, which are illegal.

The second part is if you're poor you are screwed because there is no court appointed attorney available because this is a civil venture not a criminal venture. Which basically screws people out of their due process. You're only hope is to find something like institute for justice and hope they will take your case if you don't have money for a lawyer upfront. Also there is no trial date set until you go sue for your money back. The police simply take your money and if you don't go to fight for it back, they get to keep it. Even if you go fight for it back unless you have some solid documentation it's yours, you're probably not getting it back.

Imagine if you had stowed away money in a cookie jar for 20 years then took it out to go by pick up in a different state, but you wanted to take cash to get a better deal. Then you get stopped on the way and the police after ask if you have a large amount of cash and you say yes because you don't want to lie, then they say people moving up and down this highway with a large amount of cash are obviously drug dealers and take your money. Have fun proving it's yours and wasn't got in an illicit manner. Things like this have happened before

And if you say well a drug dog smells drugs on the money so it must obviously be drug money, you need to understand that there are documented cases of drug dogs that have a 100% alert rate. Not a 100% hit rate with any recovery of drugs, but dogs that every time they show up on scene indicate drugs are in the vehicle. In other words every vehicle ever sniffed by some of these dogs have drugs in them, problem is they don't

So you take the money but don't arrest them, where is the due process?

Cleatas is right...whenever monies/items are seized in a raid, etc. the person or persons it was seized from can request a hearing to tell their side of the story and prove to a judge that the monies/items were obtained by legal means.

Did you watch the video Pawpaw posted on page one? The cops said (paraphrasing) "you did nothing illegal" and then they took his money. No arrest, no trial, no appointed attorney, just a "you can sue us to get this back if you want, late sucker" (once again paraphrasing). They gave him a good helping of the freedom he had been fighting for in the Marines....

You need to watch pawpaw's video from page one as well. Once again by making it a civil forfeiture, due process and an appointed attorney go out the window. So if you are poor and all you money was seized, how you paying for that attorney

RJ you are reaching…if a cop takes your cookie jar of money and has ZERO reason or any articulable reason other than you had cash then he needs to be liable to pay the Interest when you get your money back because you will get it back. And I’m not talking about you telling me you have your cookie jar of money to go buy a truck. I’m talking about having your money wrapped in duct tape to hopefully conceal any odor and having it stowed away in a hidden compartment. Not your hidden factory cubby in the floorboard of your dodge but an illegally installed compartment which is also a criminal offense to have on your vehicle when used as a criminal instrument.

Did you watch pawpaw's video?

And the things I listed have happened, so I am not reaching too far. Maybe the people didn't keep their money in a cookie jar over the years, but having money seized when heading to but a truck out of state has happened

I didn’t watch the video but if that’s basically what was done then no I don’t agree with that. I’m not taking someone’s money without damn good reason and reason I can testify to.