Nevada Cops And DEA Seize Life Savings Of Innocent Marine!

[Reagan]

Thoughts?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

If the government can prove that money came from a crime, I have no problem with them keeping it.

The law should say that there has to be evidence other than just it is a large sum of money. There should also be a time frame placed on it.

I think the guy’s  story is full of crap however if they can’t prove it, the government must move on and return it. It’s like you might be committing a crime but they can’t prove it so they can’t hold you in jail until they can figure out something to charge you with.

And just on a personal belief, I think he was on his way to buy drugs, illegal guns or something else. 

[LumRaiderFan]

I would be curious to know what grounds they “adopted” the money on.

[tvc184]

51 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I would be curious to know what grounds they “adopted” the money on.

That is merely  terminology. They did not adopt the money, they adopted the civil  case from the state police.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

That is merely  terminology. They did not adopt the money, they adopted the civil  case from the state police.

What do you think made them feel they had a right to confiscate this money?

Surely it’s not simply like what you said earlier, that they “think” he was going to buy drugs.

[tvc184]

13 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

What do you think made them feel they had a right to confiscate this money?

Surely it’s not simply like what you said earlier, that they “think” he was going to buy drugs.

Reasonable suspicion is required for a seizure.

Since I don’t know what that suspicion was, I can only tell you what the law is.

I understand that that is a political website and they are putting out what they want you to know. Maybe it is 100% true, but… it is a one-sided story.

I think he was doing something illegal but I also believe it takes evidence to continue.  Without reading the entire case and hopefully with at least  audio recording, who really knows? He might have changed his story two or three times, he might’ve been unbelievably nervous, they might’ve found evidence on him they didn’t match what he was telling them, etc. Just mere suspicion from the article, I think his excuse for carrying the money was nonsense. 

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Reasonable suspicion is required for a seizure.

Since I don’t know what that suspicion was, I can only tell you what the law is.

I understand that that is a political website and they are putting out what they want you to know. Maybe it is 100% true, but… it is a one-sided story.

I think he was doing something illegal but I also believe it takes evidence to continue.  Without reading the entire case and hopefully with at least  audio recording, who really knows? He might have changed his story two or three times, he might’ve been unbelievably nervous, they might’ve found evidence on him they didn’t match what he was telling them, etc. Just mere suspicion from the article, I think his excuse for carrying the money was nonsense. 

Why does his excuse for carrying the money have to make sense to them?

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Why does his excuse for carrying the money have to make sense to them?

I don’t think I said it had to make sense to them. I said they can seize evidence or a property with reasonable suspicion. That is, what would a reasonable person believe knowing what the officer knows at that time?

But to use your word, if it does not make sense, does that make it a reasonable belief? If you left Beaumont and went west on IH10 heading toward Houston and the police stopped you and asked where you were going and you told them you were heading toward New York, does that make sense? Would it make a reasonable person and believe something is not right here?

Like I said, I don’t know what happened and can only tell you what the law is. Did they have a good reason to seize the money? I don’t have a clue and that slanted article sure doesn’t talk about it.

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I don’t think I said it had to make sense to them. I said they can seize evidence or a property with reasonable suspicion. That is, what would a reasonable person believe knowing what the officer knows at that time?

But to use your word, if it does not make sense, does that make it a reasonable belief? If you left Beaumont and went west on IH10 heading toward Houston and the police stopped you and asked where you were going and you told them you were heading toward New York, does that make sense? Would it make a reasonable person and believe something is not right here?

Like I said, I don’t know what happened and can only tell you what the law is. Did they have a good reason to seize the money? I don’t have a clue and that slanted article sure doesn’t talk about it.

 

 

If I want to drive around with $100,000, I shouldn’t be subject to arrest by folks that haven’t proven a crime from where the money came from or where they “think” it’s going.

There is enough crime out there, no need to manufacture it.

[tvc184]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

If I want to drive around with $100,000, I shouldn’t be subject to arrest by folks that haven’t proven a crime from where the money came from or where they “think” it’s going.

There is enough crime out there, no need to manufacture it.

They did not arrest him.

[LumRaiderFan]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

They did not arrest him.

Why did they stop him?

[tvc184]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Why did they stop him?

For a traffic charge. What does that have to do with them not arresting him?

1. Cop sees what he believes is a violation of the law.

2. Cop stops the person/driver and speaks with him.

3. During the conversation the driver has the right not to answer questions but voluntarily tells the cop that he is carrying almost $90,000.

4. The guy gives us a story as to why he is carrying that large sum of money.

5. The original cop’s supervisor shows up and for reasons unknown to us, decides that the money was either illegally gained or was about to be used for a crime.

6. After the seizure of the money, the driver is allowed to go about his way.

7. The state asked the federal government to file a seizure under their law, thinking that the money was to be used in a crime for reasons unknown to us.

8. The federal government had to return the money because they could not prove that the money was going to be used illegally.

 

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

For a traffic charge. What does that have to do with them not arresting him?

1. Cop sees what he believes is a violation of the law.

2. Cop stops the person/driver and speaks with him.

3. During the conversation the driver has the right not to answer questions but voluntarily tells the cop that he is carrying almost $90,000.

4. The guy gives us a story as to why he is carrying that large sum of money.

5. The original cop’s supervisor shows up and for reasons unknown to us, decides that the money was either illegally gained or was about to be used for a crime.

6. After the seizure of the money, the driver is allowed to go about his way.

7. The state asked the federal government to file a seizure under their law, thinking that the money was to be used in a crime for reasons unknown to us.

8. The federal government had to return the money because they could not prove that the money was going to be used illegally.

 

 

 

I just don’t agree that they can make it their business as to why he’s carrying this money and can hold him until they decide it’s ok that he has it.

Seems he’s guilty until they decide he’s innocent.  

Maybe I’m just sick and tired of any government overreach these days.

[tvc184]

23 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I just don’t agree that they can make it their business as to why he’s carrying this money and can hold him until they decide it’s ok that he has it.

Seems he’s guilty until they decide he’s innocent.  

Maybe I’m just sick and tired of any government overreach these days.

I am not disagreeing with your anger at the government.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean property cannot be seized and that doesn’t mean you cannot be arrested. Heck, you can be indicted by grand jury and be stuck in jail on $1 million bond for murder and you were still not guilty.

This guy was not arrested and his money was not forfeited.

Similar to a search of a person or a vehicle without a warrant (warrants are not typically needed to search people or vehicles with probable cause), it is a kind of now or never situation. Let’s  say the police thought that he was using the money for something illegal but they let him drive away with the money and they will look into it further. They get a warrant and look at his cell phone information and find out that it was going to be used a drug deal. So now they call him and say hey, we just found out that money is likely to be use for drugs so please bring it back to us.

RIGHT!!!

It is the same as making a traffic stop on a vehicle and the  police have probable cause that there are drugs in the car. What are the police going to do, tell the driver  that they will be back in two hours with a warrant and please wait for us.

When the police come up on something that may be stolen, may be a crime, may be evidence, may be contraband, have probable cause to arrest or search… there usually is no time for an investigation and later warrants. The police need to either do it immediately or in most cases, simply forget about it  because they’re about to let all of the evidence go. 

[CardinalBacker]

This has always been a pet peeve of mine.  The cops take your money, and you're going to have to pay an attorney (whose going to expect a large portion of YOUR money) to try and get your money back from the cops who were "suspicious."

I can tell from TVC's responses that he's been washed in the blood and believes that anybody with cash in the car is doing something illegal, and therefore deserves to lose it unless they can prove in court that they came about it legitimately.  You can say all you want about crooked cops, institutional racism, systemic bias, etc.... but there's really not a way to prove it.  This particular example is easily proven.  Law enforcement has the burden of proof, right?  Not in these cases.  "Pay up and prove it's legal, or we're taking it."

 
I firmly believe that when officers/DAs are criminally prosecuted for each every failed confiscation attempt, innocent people will stop being victimized by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.  

[tvc184]

27 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

This has always been a pet peeve of mine.  The cops take your money, and you're going to have to pay an attorney (whose going to expect a large portion of YOUR money) to try and get your money back from the cops who were "suspicious."

I can tell from TVC's responses that he's been washed in the blood and believes that anybody with cash in the car is doing something illegal, and therefore deserves to lose it unless they can prove in court that they came about it legitimately.  You can say all you want about crooked cops, institutional racism, systemic bias, etc.... but there's really not a way to prove it.  This particular example is easily proven.  Law enforcement has the burden of proof, right?  Not in these cases.  "Pay up and prove it's legal, or we're taking it."

 
I firmly believe that when officers/DAs are criminally prosecuted for each every failed confiscation attempt, innocent people will stop being victimized by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.  

How did you come to that conclusion?  I think most seizures should be illegal unless based on very good evidence. If you read my comments above I said I don’t know if they had a valid reason to seize the money. I also said that if they can’t prove it, needs to be returned and be done with it and not held indefinitely. 

But I can tell a BS story when I hear it……

The guy’s story was BS. 

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

How did you come to that conclusion?  I think most seizures should be illegal unless based on very good evidence. If you read my comments above I said I don’t know if they had a valid reason to seize the money. I also said that if they can’t prove it, needs to be returned and be done with it and not held indefinitely. 

But I can tell a BS story when I hear it……

The guy’s story was BS. 

 

 

That's my point, that these guys thought the story was BS is not good evidence imo.

[CardinalBacker]

12 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

How did you come to that conclusion?  I think most seizures should be illegal unless based on very good evidence. If you read my comments above I said I don’t know if they had a valid reason to seize the money. I also said that if they can’t prove it, needs to be returned and be done with it and not held indefinitely. 

But I can tell a BS story when I hear it……

The guy’s story was BS. 

 

 

That's my point... it doesn't matter what his story is, first of all.  A suspicious story should not be enough of a reason to take a person's money.  Period.  A police officer's opinion as to whether or not a person "should" be carrying money is no excuse to just take it.  The only valid reason for a police office to seize money is when they can prove that a crime has been committed... prove, not believe or suspect.  You know, evidence, facts... stuff like that.  Not just "my experience tells me that nobody should be riding around with $90k... but don't worry... if he can PROVE why he has that much cash to us, we'll give it back."

Secondly, we both know that the process of recovering money from these situations is expensive.  You'll spend 1000s of dollars and who knows how long trying to convince the police to give your money back.  Like I said... officers who seize citizen's cash without being able to prove that it was ill gotten should spend as long in prison as they would have for actually stealing those funds.  The only people that don't agree with that wear badges. That's a fact.  That "it should be returned and be done with" portion of your statement should also include a criminal prosecution for the officer. 

 

[SmashMouth]

55 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

That's my point... it doesn't matter what his story is, first of all.  A suspicious story should not be enough of a reason to take a person's money.  Period.  A police officer's opinion as to whether or not a person "should" be carrying money is no excuse to just take it.  The only valid reason for a police office to seize money is when they can prove that a crime has been committed... prove, not believe or suspect.  You know, evidence, facts... stuff like that.  Not just "my experience tells me that nobody should be riding around with $90k... but don't worry... if he can PROVE why he has that much cash to us, we'll give it back."

Secondly, we both know that the process of recovering money from these situations is expensive.  You'll spend 1000s of dollars and who knows how long trying to convince the police to give your money back.  Like I said... officers who seize citizen's cash without being able to prove that it was ill gotten should spend as long in prison as they would have for actually stealing those funds.  The only people that don't agree with that wear badges. That's a fact.  That "it should be returned and be done with" portion of your statement should also include a criminal prosecution for the officer. 

 

But you have to ask the question, “Is what the police did legal?” If the answer is yes, then how do you come by with criminal prosecution of the officer? The real answer should be…” I don’t like this law and I want to help get it changed.” Otherwise, you (and anyone else) are just pissing and moaning. 

[LumRaiderFan]

44 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

But you have to ask the question, “Is what the police did legal?” If the answer is yes, then how do you come by with criminal prosecution of the officer? The real answer should be…” I don’t like this law and I want to help get it changed.” Otherwise, you (and anyone else) are just pissing and moaning. 

We already have a law, the 4th Amendment.  Simply follow it to the letter.

I wouldn't call this pissing and moaning, I'd call it righteous indignation.

[CardinalBacker]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's a cash grab for local LEOs and the legislators are hesitant to do the right thing because they don't want to get labeled "soft" on crime... despite the fact that everyday people are literally being shaken down by cops. 

Average price to recover money seized by the cops is $20k and two years, allegedly. 

[InMAGAWeTrust]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's a cash grab for local LEOs and the legislators are hesitant to do the right thing because they don't want to get labeled "soft" on crime... despite the fact that everyday people are literally being shaken down by cops. 

Average price to recover money seized by the cops is $20k and two years, allegedly. 

Now I’m not saying all cops are bad.. but There’s a reason you never heard anyone make a song called “F* the fire department”

 

Imagine how often this BS happens, and how often the cops get away with it. 

[LumRaiderFan]

There is no need for this to turn into a bash the cops thread, no one has more respect for law enforcement than me.

It's just that a situation like this where someone did nothing wrong other than it was decided he was carrying too much money and his reasoning for it didn't sit well with local law enforcement so we're going to confiscate it even though no crime was committed.

He may turn out to be a major league drug dealer...bust him when he breaks the law.

Question for TVC, who keeps the money if it turned out it was tied to a crime?

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

But you have to ask the question, “Is what the police did legal?” If the answer is yes, then how do you come by with criminal prosecution of the officer? The real answer should be…” I don’t like this law and I want to help get it changed.” Otherwise, you (and anyone else) are just pissing and moaning. 

I actually wrote a long winded response to that and deleted it.

That is what qualified immunity is all about  and causing the current uproar over it. If a police officer follows state and federal law and follows state and federal court rulings and follows his own department’s policy, do you want to hold him responsible? What is a Court going to say, we find you guilty for following the rules that we made?

Sue the city for making a stupid rule, sue the federal or state governments for  their unconstitutional laws, try to get a different court ruling or whatever. Why hold the officer at the end of the line responsible for following all of the rules given to him by those entities?

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We already have a law, the 4th Amendment.  Simply follow it to the letter.

I wouldn't call this pissing and moaning, I'd call it righteous indignation.

But in this case, they did (apparently) follow the law.

Part of “the law” is court rulings. The United States Constitution in Article III says that if there is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final answer.

The SC has yet to throw out those seizure laws.