Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Judge Orders Cop To Return Seized $167,000 Taken From Man For ‘Driving Too Slow’
Source:
Counter Current News
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/ ... from-man-for-driving-too-slow/
Published: Jun 25, 2015
Author: M. David and Jackson Marciana
Post Date: 2015-06-26 09:38:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3082
Comments: 22
You know there is a problem when a police officer can literally steal thousands of dollars from you for no reason other than because you were “driving too slow.” This week, a federal judge agreed that this confiscation of personal funds was absolutely insane and illegal. That judge ordered the U.S. government to return $167,000 that was stolen by a Nevada police officer. The judge described the law enforcement and state government as having a clear “lack of candor” in this case. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a Nevada state trooper stopped Straughn Gorman in his motor home on Interstate 80 back in January 2013. The reason? The officer alleged that the massive motor home was “driving too slow.” The officer demanded to search the motor home. Gorman refused to consent to a search. So the trooper actually let him go… But it was all a trick. The trooper radioed ahead to an Elko County sheriff’s deputy. That deputy pulled the motor home over without any probable cause whatsoever. At the request of the trooper, the deputy searched the motor home with a drug-sniffing dog. The deputy said the dog turned up a “hit”. There was something “suspicious in the motor home. But that “something suspicious” wasn’t drugs. It wasn’t anything illegal at all. It was just money. The driver didn’t trust banks. Whether you view that as normal, eccentric or even a bit “crazy” is irrelevant. The $167,000 hidden in the vehicle was obtained entirely legally. But none of that mattered to the cops. They confiscated – they stole – the money, turning it over to the federal “authorities” for civil forfeiture proceedings, even though Gorman was never charged with a crime. The State claimed that Gorman might have been intending to use the money to purchase marijuana. Gorman says nothing of the sort was going on. He wasn’t buying marijuana. He wasn’t buying anything. He just kept his savings in cash and kept it on him. He was actually on his way to visit his girlfriend in Sacramento. Watch the local report below… Senior U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks ruled that the U.S. Attorneys Office in Reno was actually concealing information about the illegal nature of both the initial and subsequent traffic stops. “No matter how this can be viewed, the two stops were for minor traffic violations and they both were extended beyond the legitimate purposes for such traffic stops,” Hicks explained in his ruling. The fact that the second stop would not have occurred if not for the first violated Gorman’s Fourth Amendment rights. The judge ruled that the trooper and deputies did not have “independent reasonable suspicion” to conduct the second traffic stop. Both cops broke the law. “This district has recently emphasized the importance of candor to the court at all stages of investigation,” the judge explained. Vincent Savarese, Gorman’s lawyer, said that it is “dismay[ing] that it required so much effort and litigation to bring the truthful facts to light that allowed Judge Hicks to make an informed decision.” (Article by M. David and Jackson Marciana) 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
So, basically, the drug trafficker got off on a technicality. And this was under the same justice system that said a health exchange "established by the states" was exactly the same thing as a health exchange established by the federal government. Uh-huh. Gives me faith in the system.
Uh - No. No drugs were found, no EVIDENCE of any drugs or illegal activity was found. But you keep cheering for this bullshit paulsen. Makes me wonder what agency you work for. The trooper radioed ahead to an Elko County sheriff’s deputy. That deputy pulled the motor home over without any probable cause whatsoever. At the request of the trooper, the deputy searched the motor home with a drug-sniffing dog. The deputy said the dog turned up a “hit”. There was something “suspicious in the motor home. But that “something suspicious” wasn’t drugs. It wasn’t anything illegal at all. It was just money. The driver didn’t trust banks. Whether you view that as normal, eccentric or even a bit “crazy” is irrelevant. The $167,000 hidden in the vehicle was obtained entirely legally. But none of that mattered to the cops. They confiscated – they stole – the money, turning it over to the federal “authorities” for civil forfeiture proceedings, even though Gorman was never charged with a crime. The State claimed that Gorman might have been intending to use the money to purchase marijuana. Gorman says nothing of the sort was going on. He wasn’t buying marijuana. He wasn’t buying anything. He just kept his savings in cash and kept it on him. He was actually on his way to visit his girlfriend in Sacramento.
Proving once again that the justice system you hate so deeply works. Now, say thank you to our judicial sustem. Then stand up, place your right hand over your heart and join Le Greenwood in singing "God Bless the USA" loudly and proudly. Begin now:
Proving once again that the justice system you hate so deeply works. Sometimes. Not all the time. If you despise the 4th Amendment, you can launch a campaign to have it repealed. Though that would be, in too many cases, only a formality. Thankfully, not in this case. Your calling this man a drug dealer is libel, by the way, in case you care about the law. Edit: If the system really works well in this case, we'll see the guy successfully sue the cops for legal expenses and sue, and they'll have to pay 30K-50K for the time and trouble they illegally put this guy through.
Where did I call this man a "drug dealer?" I can't find that. Edit: If you can't find where I called this man a drug dealer...then what is the law for you saying I called this man a drug dealer when I did not, by the way, I am interested in the law.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
So, basically, the drug trafficker got off on a technicality.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
Judge Orders Cop To Return Seized $167,000
#7. To: Gatlin (#4)
(Edited)
#9. To: Pinguinite (#7)
(Edited)
Your calling this man a drug dealer is libel, by the way, in case you care about the law.
Replies to Comment # 9.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]