Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case

[aquaman67]

If you watch the interview with the LEO on newschannel5 he admits to lying on the official report.

How does he get away with that?

Do LEOs often just make up what suits them against citizens?

[Guest HankRearden]

There seems to be some confusion here. Due in part to the Channel 5 story.

Channel 5 is portraying the entire seizure process as ex-parte when that is not the case. Essentially this is the process:

1. Item is seized

2. A notice of seizure is given to the person in possession of the item being seized and a notice is mailed to the owner if they are different people. This notice explains the entire seizure process.

3. A seizure warrant is written and taken to a judge (this is the ex-parte portion) where the Officer explains why they believe the item should be seized. If the judge agrees and signs the seizure warrant you go to 4. If not, the matter is done.

4. A copy of the warrant is filed at the clerks office and another is sent to the department of safety.

5. A hearing date is set in front of an administrative judge where all parties with an interest in the item seized come and present their evidence. The state presents their evidence and the administrative judge issues an order within 30 days deciding who gets the item.

5. If the state loses they get one appeal. If the individual loses they get four appeals with each one in a different court/venue.

The individual is not what is on trial in these proceedings. The property itself is. The state must prove that the item was the proceeds from illegal activity, used to facilitate illegal activity or used in the manufacture of an illegal substance.

Now keep in mind this is the seizure route for narcotics and a couple of other specific crimes.

If an item is seized subsequent to prostitution, gambling, theft or another type of violent crime then the entire seizure process is done in the same court as the criminal matter.

If you drive your car to pick up a prostitute then it is subject to forfeiture as a conveyance used to facilitate a crime.

Now if you really want to see some loose asset seizure laws look into assets seized in conjunction with wildlife violations.

[gjohnsoniv]

It's also Monterey.

[JAB]

If an item is seized subsequent to prostitution, gambling, theft or another type of violent crime then the entire seizure process is done in the same court as the criminal matter.

If you drive your car to pick up a prostitute then it is subject to forfeiture as a conveyance used to facilitate a crime.

No citizen should be forced to go to court, jump through hoops, spend time (and money) etc. to retrieve 'seized' property when there was no real, legal justification for seizing it in the first place. It would be like a cop coming into my house, taking my shotgun because of some claim that he suspects that I might use it to illegally shoot someone, some day (despite a total lack of evidence or any behavior on my part to support such claims) and then force me to 'prove' that I won't do so before I can get my shotgun back - and then (in some cases) telling me that I can have the shotgun back as long as I agree to let the cops take it to the range and shoot it on the second Tuesday of every month. It is theft and extortion, plain and simple.

Edited May 16, 2012 by JAB

[Guest HankRearden]

No citizen should be forced to go to court, jump through hoops, spend time (and money) etc. to retrieve 'seized' property when there was no real, legal justification for seizing it in the first place. It would be like a cop coming into my house, taking my shotgun because of some claim that he suspects that I might use it to illegally shoot someone, some day (despite a total lack of evidence or any behavior on my part to support such claims) and then force me to 'prove' that I won't do so before I can get my shotgun back - and then (in some cases) telling me that I can have the shotgun back as long as I agree to let the cops take it to the range and shoot it on the second Tuesday of every month. It is theft and extortion, plain and simple.

That is true if there is no justification.

The problem with your argument is you are basing a seizure on a future event that may or may not happen (and would be theft in your scenario). Asset seizure is based upon what the intstrumentalities of the crime (assets) have been a part of. Not what they might be involved in on a future date. The burden of proof that must be met by the respondent in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding is beyond a preponderance of the evidence. This is far lower than being beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal conviction)

Asset forfeiture is intended to deprive criminal organizations and individuals whose source of income (in whole or part) is from criminal activity from retaining the profits of their criminal activity. Is it a perfect system? No. Can it be abused? Yes. Are there mechanisms in place so that an individual wronged can seek damages and made whole? Yes there are.

An individual whose assets have been wrongfully seized can sue the seizing agency and the individual seizing agent personally and professionally for any and all damages including lost interest arising from the illegal seizure.

Phil Williams and Channel 5 are not telling the whole story. The mainstream media never does on any topic and we all know this yet when it comes to kicking the police on any kind of matter then the media's word becomes gospel. Why hasn't a story been done on the millions of dollars seized from criminal organizations that effectively disrupted and resulted in shutting down those organizations?

Why hasn't a story been done on all the times that assets have not been seized because of due diligence and ethical police practices?

Why hasn't a story been done on the millions of dollars that the taxpayers (you) never have to spend because of asset seizure?

Because these stories don't sell headlines and stir up emotion. They would rather have you believe that the police are walking down the sidewalk and punching people in the head then rifling through the unconscious persons pockets to steal whatever is in them. And many of you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[JohnC]

Some tips here:

[media=]

http://www.flexyourr...watch_DVD_clips

I know it's kind of dopey because it is more or less directed at the ghetto type stuff, but it emphasizes "do not consent to searches" and keep your mouth shut, etc.

For me, I am not a criminal and I simply would do this to save myself and the officer from a complete waste of time. That will allow him to get going and maybe catch a real crook.

Edit: And to protect my property from damage that they would not be responsible for if I consented to the search.

Edited May 20, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Asset seizure and forfeiture laws incriminate you before you are given your day in court. Don't tell me I swallow something

hook, line and sinker by agreeing with something Channel 5 News did. That's disingenuous. When a law is passed that

allows presumption of guilt something is wrong with that law. You may ultimately get your property back, but it still isn't without

jumping through hoops, and it is a process that many will merely see not worth it to go to the trouble of arguing with a court

that allowed the process, in the first place.Taking property on suspicion isn't good enough, at least it used to not be and it

can be abused, like this piece illustrated. Innocent until "proven" guilty. If the authorities don't have any reason to prosecute

a case, they should move on. This is not justice. It is part of a police state.

[DaveTN]

That is true if there is no justification.

The problem with your argument is you are basing a seizure on a future event that may or may not happen (and would be theft in your scenario). Asset seizure is based upon what the intstrumentalities of the crime (assets) have been a part of. Not what they might be involved in on a future date. The burden of proof that must be met by the respondent in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding is beyond a preponderance of the evidence. This is far lower than being beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal conviction)

Asset forfeiture is intended to deprive criminal organizations and individuals whose source of income (in whole or part) is from criminal activity from retaining the profits of their criminal activity. Is it a perfect system? No. Can it be abused? Yes. Are there mechanisms in place so that an individual wronged can seek damages and made whole? Yes there are.

An individual whose assets have been wrongfully seized can sue the seizing agency and the individual seizing agent personally and professionally for any and all damages including lost interest arising from the illegal seizure.

Phil Williams and Channel 5 are not telling the whole story. The mainstream media never does on any topic and we all know this yet when it comes to kicking the police on any kind of matter then the media's word becomes gospel. Why hasn't a story been done on the millions of dollars seized from criminal organizations that effectively disrupted and resulted in shutting down those organizations?

Why hasn't a story been done on all the times that assets have not been seized because of due diligence and ethical police practices?

Why hasn't a story been done on the millions of dollars that the taxpayers (you) never have to spend because of asset seizure?

Because these stories don't sell headlines and stir up emotion. They would rather have you believe that the police are walking down the sidewalk and punching people in the head then rifling through the unconscious persons pockets to steal whatever is in them. And many of you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Maybe it’s how they do things now…. I don’t know. As a Police Officer I seized many vehicles, and worked the cases to even have homes seized of criminals. But they were people that were arrested, and ultimately convicted of drug offenses. I don’t have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with a Police Department or District Attorney seizing assets of someone that is not charged with, or even accused of a crime.

I have a hard time believing this is the fault of cops on the street. We had to submit our arrest reports to Command Officers or a Shift Commander along with the evidence we seized. Those reports had to support the charges we had charged a person with. Do they not do that anymore? Did no one question why $22K was taken off a citizen and no arrest was made?

Please fill us in on what the media is not telling us? I fell for this hook line and sinker, I never ask anyone I stopped if they had cash on them, and don’t know why a Police Officer would do this unless it was part of a drug possession investigation.

I saw the dash video of the 23 rd JDDTF surrounding the Dice Officer and in a different incident saw the heated exchange between a JDDTF Officer and a DICE Officer. I’m sure News 5 edited that video to make it look as bad as possible. I’m sure the six vehicles could have been meeting for coffee and donuts in the middle of the interstate, but I can’t think of a good reason the heated exchange between the two Officers.

Anyone that has been here for very long knows that I support the cops when they are right. But this is wrong, and I am amazed that it’s went this far without anyone in this state’s law enforcement doing anything to stop it. I didn’t think I would ever say this…. But it’s time for the Feds to step in.

[TripleDigitRide]

Like the rest of the bull**** we deal with from our government, this will continue to be business as usual until the American people make a stand.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[vontar]

Highway Robbery.

To be honest they are the ones with the guns as well, so it is highway robbery at gun point in a sense.

[JohnC]

Check out this Channel 5 video at the point where the two cops get pissed at each other when one cuts off a DICE cop.

Competition for the cops to steal money... This really is sad.

http://www.newschann...&clipId=7267350

Edited May 20, 2012 by JohnC

[TN Outlaw]

yeah this is wrong no different than committing a crime

[daddyo]

This kind of crap only makes it harder for the average joe to trust law enforcement.

When law enforcement as a whole starts policing itself and prosecuting and convicting the thugs with a badge and a gun within their own ranks, then they will have taken a HUGE step in regaining the trust of the citizenry.

[mikegideon]

I'm usually as hard on the media as it gets. In this case, I think they're just exposing something that won't be exposed any other way. "War" on drugs, "War" on terror... both contain laws that invite abuse. As AR said, police state.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I never understood all the cops, federal, state and local trolling the interstates, especially I-40, like they do. It gives new meaning

to the word "highwaymen". It's not law enforcement at all.