Jump to content

'LEGAL THEFT': Texas police seized man's life savings. Now the state is putting his cash on trial

LumRaiderFan

By LumRaiderFan
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted

This is the hidden content, please

Seems law enforcement can seize your money but don't have to prove you committed a crime.

I've read similar cases where folks had to go to court to try and get their money back, some successful, some not.

Civil forfeiture does look like legal theft in some of these cases.  Even if this guy gets his money back, they have likely ruined his business, they took it four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
On 5/15/2023 at 3:29 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

Seems law enforcement can seize your money but don't have to prove you committed a crime.

I've read similar cases where folks had to go to court to try and get their money back, some successful, some not.

Civil forfeiture does look like legal theft in some of these cases.  Even if this guy gets his money back, they have likely ruined his business, they took it four years ago.

And you have to pay your own legal fees out of pocket.... Most people make a business decision to just give up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted

I personally feel that the entity who couldn't prove that they had a right to seize those funds AND every person and the police unit involved in the arrest and prosecution should each be held personally liable for an amount no less than 3x the amount they seized, with interest at 18% from the time it was seized until it is refunded.  So, if they take 10,000 off of me, the city/county/state owes me $30k, the cop who took it personally owes me 30k, the DA personally owes me 30k, etc. plus interest.  It would put an end to the underhanded nature of stealing people's money... Currently there's no deterrent for the bad behavior on law enforcement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I personally feel that the entity who couldn't prove that they had a right to seize those funds AND every person and the police unit involved in the arrest and prosecution should each be held personally liable for an amount no less than 3x the amount they seized, with interest at 18% from the time it was seized until it is refunded.  So, if they take 10,000 off of me, the city/county/state owes me $30k, the cop who took it personally owes me 30k, the DA personally owes me 30k, etc. plus interest.  It would put an end to the underhanded nature of stealing people's money... Currently there's no deterrent for the bad behavior on law enforcement.  

Yeah, this definitely needs to stop, confiscating money for no reason, no charges, and make it the responsibility of the person who the money legally belongs to have to spend their time and money in court for years to try and get THEIR money back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yeah, this definitely needs to stop, confiscating money for no reason, no charges, and make it the responsibility of the person who the money legally belongs to have to spend their time and money in court for years to try and get THEIR money back.

 

As somebody who's normally pro-cop and generally on the side of law and order (even if I do call 'em pigs), this issue is one that's hard for me to stomach.  They can take the cash with no justification, sit on it indefinitely, and the odds are stacked in their favor that they'll get to keep it if it all goes wrong.  Seriously.... If they picked 7K off of you, would you pay some attorney $5k in hopes that he might get your seven back?  Probably not.  It's just wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

As somebody who's normally pro-cop and generally on the side of law and order (even if I do call 'em pigs), this issue is one that's hard for me to stomach.  They can take the cash with no justification, sit on it indefinitely, and the odds are stacked in their favor that they'll get to keep it if it all goes wrong.  Seriously.... If they picked 7K off of you, would you pay some attorney $5k in hopes that he might get your seven back?  Probably not.  It's just wrong. 

Very pro cop as well, but this is definitely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

Once again.. I never once heard someone say “F the fire department”. Makes me wonder why 

#bluelivesmatter

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, tvc184 said:

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

No charges were filed, IF you go by the article, he had no criminal activity to base this on.  Looks like he found money and no crime and just decided to take it.  And why haven’t they given the money back after 4 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No charges were filed, IF you go by the article, he had no criminal activity to base this on.  Looks like he found money and no crime and just decided to take it.  And why haven’t they given the money back after 4 years?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmashMouth

SmashMouth

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No charges were filed, IF you go by the article, he had no criminal activity to base this on.  Looks like he found money and no crime and just decided to take it.  And why haven’t they given the money back after 4 years?

I have been hesitant to chime in mostly due to a lack of information. Highlighted above is exactly my question. Did the guy have priors? Was he already under investigation? Were the police tipped about something the truck driver had done illegally? Other than having a large amount of cash in his possession, were there any extenuating circumstances which would call for the seizure of the man's money? Unless "YES" is the answer to any of those questions, it would seem that he has been wronged. Legal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I have been hesitant to chime in mostly due to a lack of information. Highlighted above is exactly my question. Did the guy have priors? Was he already under investigation? Were the police tipped about something the truck driver had done illegally? Other than having a large amount of cash in his possession, were there any extenuating circumstances which would call for the seizure of the man's money? Unless "YES" is the answer to any of those questions, it would seem that he has been wronged. Legal or not.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

There is a big difference between this scenario and the one I posted.  You actually caught guys committing a crime, doesn’t seem to be the case with the truck driver, they just seemed to have come across some cash and no crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There is a big difference between this scenario and the one I posted.  You actually caught guys committing a crime, doesn’t seem to be the case with the truck driver, they just seemed to have come across some cash and no crime.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted

That's the scary part... if I'm arrested in connection with a drug trafficking offense, sure... but just because a police officer says, "gee, that's an awful lot of money and I don't buy your story about being on your way to buy a truck.  I think we'll just take it" seems like a distinct violation of the 4th Amendment.... but what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonTheCon2024

DonTheCon2024

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

That's the scary part... if I'm arrested in connection with a drug trafficking offense, sure... but just because a police officer says, "gee, that's an awful lot of money and I don't buy your story about being on your way to buy a truck.  I think we'll just take it" seems like a distinct violation of the 4th Amendment.... but what do I know?

Now imagine if you’re poor, black and/or brown. You’re essentially SOL (even more so) if this happens to you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...