Middle Tennessee Police Profiting Off Drug Trade?

[vontar]

Amen.

I can't see the videos, but what I read sounds highly suspect. Did the drug dog indicate the presence of residue on the money? Wait... there wasn't a drug dog?

An owner/operator trucker could very well have large amounts of cash on hand. I'd think they'd have receipts for it too, but I don't know if that's required by law. Trucks come and go from my place of employment with up to $10M in freight aboard.

The driver consented to search in the video. That is why/how they were allowed to search.

However, had the driver declined to a search they may have brought out dogs to check and if the dogs alerted it would have give cause for a search.

I want to see the next video they previewed, guess it will be up tomorrow.

Edited May 20, 2011 by vontar

[LagerHead]

The driver consented to search in the video. That is why/how they were allowed to search.

However, had the driver declined to a search they may have brought out dogs to check and if the dogs alerted it would have give cause for a search.

I want to see the next video they previewed, guess it will be up tomorrow.

Big no no. As much as I generally despise them, the ACLU has some good videos on exercising your rights under the 4th Amendment.

[vontar]

Big no no. As much as I generally despise them, the ACLU has some good videos on exercising your rights under the 4th Amendment.

I was just explaining that is why they were able to search, I was not saying I agreed with the search. Since I got active and got my HCP last year I started reading and paying allot more attenstion to my rights and I am allot more aware of them then I was just 3 years ago. It is funny Grade school though high school, I knew my basic rights. Colllege and my early years of work I kinda started following the sheep and now I am breaking away and following my own dam path

They should not be allowed to seizure the cash with out proving it is drug money, instead of making people prove it is clean. However on the surface it does appear to be drug money but I prefer innocent until proven guilty.

I know the courts have ruled cases like this are ok pretty much like they have chipped away at other parts of our rights.

Here is the 3rd Part

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673478/questionable-traffic-stops-caught-on-camera

if you want part 2, he does not tell the driver what he did wrong to be pulled over, the interviewer pointed that out. have not watched part 3 yet.

Edited May 24, 2011 by vontar

[Guest TackleberryTom]

They should not be allowed to seizure the cash with out proving it is drug money, instead of making people prove it is clean. However on the surface it does appear to be drug money but I prefer innocent until proven guilty.

The truckers could have told them about having the cash and taken ownership of it and then the officers would have to then prove that the money was drug money. If you don't take ownership of it(the money) you forfeit the right to have them prove it's illegality.

If it was your money, you would most definitely say so. Then they would have to try to prove it was drug/illegal money. Not saying there may not still be some shady tactics used afterwards, but you would certainly argue if it was yours and legal. Most who are doing illegal activities want to get out of the situation without getting in trouble, hence they don't take ownership of the cash.

Complex problem though.

[bajabuc]

I'm curious to know how much money was confiscated and how much was turned in.

You know...if you claim the money as yours, there enters a whole new system of complications.

"How did you get the money"

"Where did it come from? Show me wage stubs that prove you earned this."

Only now you're talking to the IRS

It's still all about the money.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bajabuc

[TN-popo]

Not necessarily referring to this Channel 5 incident specifically, but just in general.

I've been a cop for about 17 years. I have always disagreed with the seizure of money when no other evidence of a crime is present.

Post #14 said it well.

If there is no evidence of a crime/probable cause for an arrest, I don't believe there should be a seizure of cash just based on the amount.

I'm not naive...I'd even say most large cash stashes on the interstate are probably illgotten.

But, if you can't prove it, then we're back to the balance of liberty vs a police state.

Edited May 29, 2011 by TN-popo

[DaveTN]

Of course Police Departments are profiting off the drug trade. If you can convict them, take their cars, trucks, cash, homes…. Seize it all…. I don’t care.

But if you can’t convict them of a crime; taking their property or money amounts to theft. It is wrong, and everyone in the law enforcement community knows it’s wrong.

Edited May 28, 2011 by DaveTN

[G27]

Not necessarily referring to this Channel 5 incident specifically, but just in general.

I've been a cop for about 17 years. I have always disagreed with the seizure of money when no other evidence of a crime is present.

Post #14 said it well.

If there is no evidence of a crime/probable cause for an arrest, I don't believe there should be a seizure of cash just based on the amount.

I'm not naive...I'd even say most large cash stashes on the interstate are probably illgotten.

But if you can't prove it, then were back to the balance of liberty vs a police state.

Of course Police Departments are profiting off the drug trade. If you can convict them, take their cars, trucks, cash, homes…. Seize it all…. I don’t care.

But if you can’t convict them of a crime; taking their property or money amounts to theft. It is wrong, and everyone in the law enforcement community knows it’s wrong.

It's not like we have a bunch of JBTs here on TGO, but I really appreciate the fact that you two feel this way. Kudos.