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

[tvc184]

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?

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

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

So you know what evidence they have? 

No I don’t, but it appears that 4 years later he hasn’t been charged with a crime but they still have his $40,000.

You good with that?

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

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

If you’re a poor black or brown or white or yellow, you probably don’t have 40k. 

[5GallonBucket]

I pay cash for many things. Especially vehicles.

So @tvc184 what’s the amount that raises the eyebrows of an LEO?
 

you mentioned $6k in a post 

 

[tvc184]

36 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No I don’t, but it appears that 4 years later he hasn’t been charged with a crime but they still have his $40,000.

You good with that?

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.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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.

 

So guilty until proven innocent, I guess?

 I guess if they don’t prove a crime they’ll hand the money back and say, oops, our bad. 

Bad law that seems to promote bad behavior.  Nothing like this should drag on for 4 years.

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So guilty until proven innocent, I guess?

 I guess if they don’t prove a crime they’ll hand the money back and say, oops, our bad. 

Bad law that seems to promote bad behavior.  Nothing like this should drag on for 4 years.

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. 

[tvc184]

43 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I pay cash for many things. Especially vehicles.

So @tvc184 what’s the amount that raises the eyebrows of an LEO?
 

you mentioned $6k in a post 

 

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. 
 

[LumRaiderFan]

43 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

So why is he having to take this to court to get his money back?

Seems there should have been charges made and not just sit stagnant with this guy’s money for 4 years.

This looks exactly like they took the money, brought no charges for 4 years in hopes that this guy from another state would just give up.  
 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So why is he having to take this to court to get his money back?

Seems there should have been charges made and not just sit stagnant with this guy’s money for 4 years.

This looks exactly like they took the money, brought no charges for 4 years in hopes that this guy from another state would just give up.  
 

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  

 

 

 

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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  

 

 

 

It seems you’re not objective. If I choose to ride around with 42k in my vehicle, I’m not very smart… but that’s no reason that the state should be able to take my funds “just because.”

There should be no proving of anything by a citizen… the burden of proof should lie solely upon the state. And you can say, “oh, it’s up to the DA” and “they’ll get their day in court,” but at the end of the day the police agency will end up with the seized funds, so y’all really, really don’t seem to mind to badly if a few people lose their big piles of cash, even if it only turns out to be for 4 years or so. You know, “temporarily.”

Here’s another question. Does the police/DA actually hang onto those exact bills, or is the money entered into the registry of the court and deposited into an interest bearing account?

[CardinalBacker]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I remember this one, too. I can remember back YEARS ago when Sulphur PD got in trouble for basically stopping and searching cars with Texas plates at night purely to confiscate their gambling winnings…  

[tvc184]

27 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

It seems you’re not objective. If I choose to ride around with 42k in my vehicle, I’m not very smart… but that’s no reason that the state should be able to take my funds “just because.”

There should be no proving of anything by a citizen… the burden of proof should lie solely upon the state. And you can say, “oh, it’s up to the DA” and “they’ll get their day in court,” but at the end of the day the police agency will end up with the seized funds, so y’all really, really don’t seem to mind to badly if a few people lose their big piles of cash, even if it only turns out to be for 4 years or so. You know, “temporarily.”

Here’s another question. Does the police/DA actually hang onto those exact bills, or is the money entered into the registry of the court and deposited into an interest bearing account?

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.

[WOSdrummer99]

51 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I can remember back YEARS ago when Sulphur PD got in trouble for basically stopping and searching cars with Texas plates at night purely to confiscate their gambling winnings…  

Back then, they were stopping people going eastbound too. Those boys over there don't play. Actually last time I was over there the construction was so bad. It was backed up from both bridges. All the way to Sulphur. And cops were sitting on the side of the road pulling people over just by pointing. One at a time. I bet he stayed busy for 8 to 10 hours that day. Never moving his car.

But back on subject. I've seen police take things, or sieze vehicles. They thought it was purchased with illegal funds. 2 detectives ridin candy and chrome on the Lac. Pop trunk with the neon too. Not talking Htown. Right here. He got it back. Took some time though.

[LumRaiderFan]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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  

 

 

 

"Soon find out" has passed, they sat on this for 4 years.

There is nothing good about how this was handled.

I'm sure they'll come up with some evidence of wrongdoing, they've had 4 years to work on it and I'm sure they want to keep THEIR $40,000.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I remember this one, too. I can remember back YEARS ago when Sulphur PD got in trouble for basically stopping and searching cars with Texas plates at night purely to confiscate their gambling winnings…  

There are plenty of articles just like this, this law needs to change.

There's no way law enforcement should be able to confiscate funds because they "think" it was linked to a crime.

 

 

 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There are plenty of articles just like this, this law needs to change.

There's no way law enforcement should be able to confiscate funds because they "think" it was linked to a crime.

 

 

 

Okay,  change the law.

 I have said that many times including in this thread. 

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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.

I've said before also...  if it's seized as a result of a crime (used to transport, purchased with drug funds, etc) then it should be seized.

But just because some cop pulls you over and thinks "hey, they shouldn't just be carrying that wad of cash.... let's just take it" is wrong, IMO.  But the police officer in you says "yeah, where there's smoke, there's fire. If they can prove it's not illegally gained, then maybe they can win it back. They just need to go to court."  It's not up to a police officer to decide what I should and shouldn't have on my person when it isn't illegal to possess in the first place.  There is no risk at all for law enforcement when seizing property... so why wouldn't they try it?

 

I repeat... what's reasonable to a police officer isn't reasonable to the rest of us, sometimes.  By your logic, some beat cop from Las Vegas would be well within his legal authority to seize Mayweather's backpack because there's no reason that he should be carrying that kind of cash. 

 

[baddog]

Good thing Seebie (sp.) wasn’t involved. lol

[LumRaiderFan]

I don't think funds should necessarily be siezed even if they think someone may be using it to commit a crime.

So is a guy withdraws a family's life savings and is headed to make a deal with an undercover agent, they should be able to sieze the money and take it away from the wife that knows nothing about this?

That money belongs to the wife, this nonsense that law enforcement agencies are entitled to it simply because they siezed it is just that, nonsense.

They have no right to ruin lives because they "found" the money.

[SmashMouth]

16 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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. 
 

$10,000 is correct generally. Back in the day on trips to Vegas, I started wiring money directly to the casino and only kept sums under $10,000 on my person. 

[DonTheCon2024]

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

It seems you’re not objective. If I choose to ride around with 42k in my vehicle, I’m not very smart… but that’s no reason that the state should be able to take my funds “just because.”

There should be no proving of anything by a citizen… the burden of proof should lie solely upon the state. And you can say, “oh, it’s up to the DA” and “they’ll get their day in court,” but at the end of the day the police agency will end up with the seized funds, so y’all really, really don’t seem to mind to badly if a few people lose their big piles of cash, even if it only turns out to be for 4 years or so. You know, “temporarily.”

Here’s another question. Does the police/DA actually hang onto those exact bills, or is the money entered into the registry of the court and deposited into an interest bearing account?

TVC is a retired cop I believe. 
 

So yeah. No disrespect but there’s really no point debating this 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

TVC is a retired cop I believe. 
 

So yeah. No disrespect but there’s really no point debating this 

Debating that several times in this thread alone I have said that forfeiture has been abused?

 I don’t know what happened in this case is pretty much all that I have said.  Apparently everyone else knows all of the details… as reported by a defense attorney who claims to not be involved in the case.