tvc184

The objectivity isn’t lost on me. Maybe if you look in the mirror? You have no objectivity whatsoever. You know that no matter what, this is wrong. I see nothing wrong with that stance at all but you’re making an argument as if it if worthy of discussion whereas you don’t think there is. That isn’t looking at it through an objective lens. Every single time I see one of these cases debated, you can almost count the seconds before someone will say, if I want to carry many thousands of dollars in bundles around with me…. That is utter nonsense. It isn’t simply being not smart. In this case the guy didn’t not say he was just riding around. He claimed to be heading to buy a truck. To any reasonable person that certainly seems like he had a seller that he was going to talk to. Their claim is also that it is “their life savings” so they can’t afford to lose it. Yeah, so he is riding around with it just because? The burden of proof does lie with the state. The trial to see if they meet that burden starts Monday. I am assuming that they deposit it but I don’t know. While I have handled many thousands of dollars in cash, I have never asked for the disposition of it. I have said this several times, in several forums and in personal discussions. I think that asset forfeiture laws need to be rewritten with a higher burden of proof of a criminal activity. I am curious what evidence they are going to present Monday. If they have none then I hope they get interest on the money return ed and the county having to pay damages. I don’t particularly like the Harris County DA Office.

Perhaps. He is taking it to court because the DA thinks that she can prevail and show by the preponderance of evidence that the money was used in a crime or was going to be used in a crime. Let’s play our favorite game show, what if. What if….. the driver told the officer it was his life savings and his bank account was empty. What if they subpoenaed his banking records and found out that the account he drew the $42,000 from, had another $250,000 in it? So now you have him caught in a lie making it look like he is covering up for something. The subpoena further showed that he has taken or deposited $10,000 or more several times in the last few months. According to the news article, the guy said he was on the way to buy a used truck (I think). Okay, give us the name of the person you were going to buy the truck from and we will check it out and if it’s true, we will give you your money back. Oh… you don’t know who you were going to give over the $42,000 to? Were you just riding around with $42,000 in two taped up bundles hoping to find somebody that would sell a truck? Why did you just get a cashier’s check? Was it a cash deal so as to avoid you and the other guy paying tax? What if they subpoenaed his phone records and it showed him texting someone just before he left Louisiana saying I’m on the way to Houston to pick up the 2 kilos. A check of the number from the text came back to a convicted drug dealer? On the other, Harris County might walk into the courtroom on Monday and announce that investigation has been dismissed and he can have his money back. I don’t have a clue but it seems like we will soon find out

When they have drugs in their pocket, any amount, but the DA won’t take it. The last time I was involved with it, I believe it was $10,000. Going back about 30 years, if we caught a street crack dealer with about 30 rocks of cocaine and $800 in his pocket, we would seize it. Later, they started getting more selective in what they would do and it was taking too much time. So I think the standard now is $10,000 but I could be wrong.

What did I say that even suggested guilty before proven innocent? I said it appears as though he will be judged by a jury of his peers. He didn’t give up and wants his day in court. He will get it.

If they can actually link it to a crime, yes. If I understand right, it is going to a trial so I’m assuming in front of a Jury. If they can convince a jury that it was illegally used money, then, yes.

If it was against the Fourth Amendment it seems like it would have been overturned a long ago but what do I know?

So you know what evidence they have?

Terrible news. I noticed that his daily posts seemed to stop like a couple of weeks ago. What an enlightening person who always added his age learned wisdom with humility and humor. Thanks for your service to out country. RIP

I do find this guy’s story as extremely suspicious but suspicion is not evidence.

Did you skip the part about the investigation afterwards? We seized televisions without making an arrest as we didn’t have enough evidence but it sure seemed like it. As I said from my first dissertation onward, it is abused (in my first sentence) if it is not linked with evidence to a crime. Every crime can’t be proven at the side of the roadway. If your intent was to note that apparently (because we don’t know) they haven’t linked the money to a crime so it should have been returned, I agree.

Yes, we don’t know any evidence or details. His story seems far fetched however there needs to be evidence against him other than the cash itself. No matter if he is wrong, there still needs to be evidence to support the allegations.

Ask the DA. The police do not file charges. They do not only act after an arrest. My partner and I stopped a vehicle one time on the traffic charge about 30 years ago. The driver had just gotten out of prison for burglary, breaking into homes. He had five televisions in the backseat of his car. Who carries five television sets around? We have no criminal charges on him however, we seized televisions. We turned it over to detectives and I believe they found one or two of them could be proven to be stolen. Should the victims get their televisions back? Should the guy have charges filed on him or revoke his parole? Should the police turn a blind eye while trying to get your property back? I suppose, if we could not approve it on the side of the road and charged him with a crime at that moment, we should’ve simply drove away and let him keep what I’m almost positive were five stolen televisions. We could after further investigation, link him to crimes involving at least some of the televisions. That is a significant difference but the fact is that we seized property with charging any crime at the time.

Sure, and that is where police involvement ends. Do you want them to ignore what may be a felony in progress?

Because the fire department isn’t in an adversarial position. Who is going to be mad, the house? The slab that’s left? You are comparing apples to liquid nitrogen.

My biggest forfeiture was $6,000 and a vehicle. The guy pleaded guilty to drug possession in federal court and had over half a pound of crack cocaine on him at the time.

But the state through the DA or US Attorney makes the decision, not a police officer.

Civil asset forfeiture is one of those ideas that started out sounding good but has been radically abused by the way the law is written. It is much like red light cameras but on a mega scale. What they do is take a situation that would be unconstitutional or statutorily unlawful. Then they make lawful by calling it civil instead of criminal. There is a huge difference between civil and criminal. Under criminal law the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence or roughly, anything more than 50%. As an example, to convict a person of running a red light, there would have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and he would have the right to face his accuser. They know that would be impossible under criminal law so they call it a civil penalty. Basically they are suing your vehicle for damages for running the red light. Caveat: Texas outlawed traffic violation cameras a few years ago. Other states still use them. I see nothing wrong with the state seizing assets gained in a crime. If a guy is selling drugs and has $250,000 in money that can be proven to be made from illegal drug sales, he should not be able to do two years in jail and then get out and keep it. The problem is the burden of proof. They can say that you have no means to make that much money like a 24 year old guy working for $15 an hour and living paycheck to paycheck but is carrying $40,000 around in his car. That obviously looks wrong and a jury might agree. But there is no need by the civil forfeiture law to show any link to a criminal activity. It is assumed. Apparently they can say that “this doesn’t look right” and that’s enough. Obviously that is wrong.

That makes sense. That is why I was wondering.

???

There are two word combinations in law that are huge. Maybe huge would be an understatement. Those combinations are and/or and may/shall. It is not just in law-enforcement but for law in general. Mostly to your question is may/shall. Most law enforcement/police actions fall under “may” which means optional or discretionary. A very limited few say “shall” which is translated as mandatory. An example is making an arrest without a warrant. There is a whole list of justifications for arresting a person without a warrant under Texas law such as “may arrest” for any crime witnessed. They “may arrest” for family (domestic) violence even if they did not witness it. They “may arrest” for a felony even if they did not witness it and it is in immediate/fresh pursuit. They “may arrest” a person, interfering with another person trying to make an emergency phone call even if they did not witness it. If a child is missing or a runaway, the officer shall immediately make a report and immediately enter the person into the national FBI computer database or NCIC. If an adult is missing and endangered, the police shall make a report and enter the person into the same NCIC computer data base, within two hours. Not only is there no option that the police “may” wait for a person to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, the law is mandatory that a missing person must be entered into the computer within those two hours. If an officer says that a person has to be missing for 24 hours before they make a report, that is a violation of the law and the officer can be held responsible and sued. There are extremely recent mandatory actions by the police, most likely prompted by the George Floyd incident. I believe one is to render aid to any person who may be injured during an arrest or use of force by the police. The other is to step in and intervened if they witnessed another officer committing a violation of a person’s rights. If you want to cut it short and without explanation, out of hundreds of pages of laws and thousands of laws or requirements, the police SHALL; Shall make a report of a 1. claimed assault, 2. a possible domestic violence or 3. identity theft. Shall document traffic stops. Shall make an arrest for the violation of a Protective Order, witnessed by the officer. Shall make a police report and enter a child into the national database immediately and if an adult, within two hours. Shall render aid for any action taken by an officer and Shall, intervener if another officer is witnessed violating a person’s rights. Edit for auto correct gibberish. Like it changed a person’s rights to the price is right… and other words that didn’t make sense. .

… while his 8 year old sister was being kidnapped. According to the police, the suspect when arrested had visible wounds. From the article: Michigan State Police said in a news release that the 8-year-old girl was in her backyard when the alleged assailant came out of the woods, grabbed her and covered her mouth. Authorities said the girl’s brother, 13, hit the alleged attacker in the head and chest using a slingshot. Police later arrested the 17-year-old based on another family member’s description…. [Hidden Content]

Maybe. Some will, some won’t. Most actions in law enforcement are discretionary. The law generally doesn’t require actions on the part of the police. There are a few limited examples of a required action but very few. Even some of those were added fairly recently.

Yes, that would be a welcome shock. Maybe the people in her state are getting tired of the lies.

One of my favorite, when we would talk about a guy that no matter what you did, saw, met, etc., he has done better or his uncle, brother or first cousin twice remove did. I went to school with a guy like that. You could be fishing with him and catch a 6 pound bass and he would toss in, “that ain’t nothing, my brother in law caught an 8 pounder last week on 6 pound test line”. Or talking about something in law enforcement and someone will throw in, “you’re wrong because my next door neighbor has a cousin in Kansas and he goes to church with a cop who said… blah blah”. Ollie called that…. The man that seen the man that seen the man that seen the bear”.

Yogi-isms. or mine… Ollie-isms.