[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash
Source: Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/11/ ... rooper-steals-20000-because-no
Published: May 11, 2016
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2016-05-11 11:26:45 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 594
Comments: 5

Prosecutors tried to drop the forfeiture case, but the judge would not let them.

Iowa State Patrol

The story of how cops stole $20,000 from Guillermo Espinoza, a construction worker with no criminal record, is sadly familiar in most respects: In July 2013, while driving through Arkansas on his way to Texas, Espinoza was pulled over by a state trooper who discovered a large amount of cash in the car, which he viewed as inherently suspicious. The money was seized and eventually forfeited based on vague allegations of drug-related activity. But there's a twist: There was so little evidence of such activity that local prosecutors decided to drop the forfeiture case. The judge would not let them, and last week a state appeals court declined to review that astounding decision because Espinoza had missed a filing deadline.

It's not clear why Arizona State Police Sgt. Dennis Overton decided to stop Espinoza, who was traveling with his girlfriend, Priscila Hernandez. The legal justification for pulling Espinoza over was missing from the state's September 2013 forfeiture complaint, which referred without explanation to "the traffic stop," and from Circuit Court Judge Chris Williams' September 2014 order authorizing permanent confiscation of the money, which said only that the stop was "proper." In his response to the forfeiture complaint, Espinoza argued that the stop was illegal, so it would be nice to know what the rationale for it was. While police have no shortage of excuses for pulling motorists over, they are supposed to settle on at least one.

After the stop, Judge Williams said, a "State of Arkansas drug dog was transported to the site in order to conduct a search of the vehicle." That's a revealing way of putting it, since according to the Supreme Court walking a drug-sniffing dog around a car does not qualify as a search. But if the dog "alerts" to the car, the Court says, that alone supplies probable cause for a search. So what Williams evidently meant was that Sgt. Overton requested a drug dog on the assumption that it would give him the permission he needed to search the car. But according to Williams, "It is obvious from the tape [of the traffic stop] that the dog did not alert on the vehicle at the scene of the stop."

Undeterred, Overton asked for permission to search the car, which Espinoza supposedly granted—a pretty suspicious sequence of events. Why bother bringing in a drug dog to justify searching a car if the driver is willing to give his consent? In any case, Williams said, "the dog alerted on a computer bag," inside which Overton found $19,894 in cash, mostly wrapped in $1,000 bundles. Overton found no contraband, drug paraphernalia, or any other sign of illegal activity. But as far as he was concerned, the cash itself was conclusive evidence that Espinoza was involved in drug trafficking.

"I've worked this interstate for the last eight years," Overton told Espinoza, according to the transcript of the dashcam video, which Williams appended to his order. "Half of my career I've spent out here. OK? Nobody—nobody—carries their money like that but one person. OK? People that deal with drugs, and deliver drugs. That's it. Nobody else. Nobody." In other words, Overton always treats people who carry large amounts of cash as criminals, which proves that only criminals carry large amounts of cash.

Espinoza, who had no criminal record and was never charged in this case, said the money came from years of construction work, and he later presented checks, receipts, and tax forms to substantiate that income. He said he took the money with him to Memphis because he was planning to buy a 4x4 truck there. But he was not happy with the advertised vehicle, so he did not complete the purchase. He offered to show Overton text messages he had exchanged with the truck seller and said his boss, whom he offered to call, would vouch for him. Overton, already convinced of Espinoza's guilt, was not interested.

Aside from the existence of the cash and the police dog's purported alert to the computer bag, the forfeiture complaint offered no evidence that Espinoza was dealing or delivering drugs. It simply asserted that "the currency was being used for drug trafficking, to further the manufacture of a controlled substance or...to facilitate the violation of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-64-536," which criminalizes possessing with intent to deliver marijuana or any other "Schedule VI controlled substance." In other words, prosecutors not only had no real evidence that Espinoza had committed a crime or was planning to do so; they could not even be bothered to specify the crime.

Although vague charges supported by meager evidence are par for the course in civil forfeiture cases, someone at the Hot Spring County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had second thoughts about this case. "The Plaintiff has decided not to pursue the forfeiture of the currency," Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Teresa Howell said in a May 2014 motion, "and the In Rem Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice." Amazingly, Judge Williams went ahead with the forfeiture anyway, making the state's case for it by citing snatches of Spanish conversation between Espinoza and Hernandez that can be heard in the dashcam video. 

The transcript of that conversation shows Espinoza was anxious that Overton would find the cash, which is either evidence of his criminal culpability or perfectly understandable in light of what ultimately happened to his money. It also shows Espinoza talking to his girlfriend about their trip to Graceland and his plan to buy a truck in Memphis, which Williams read as rehearsal of a cover story but which could also be taken at face value. Williams also made much of "inconsistent statements" by Espinoza and Hernandez, which could be explained by their limited English skills and nervousness.

Williams counted that nervousness as additional evidence of Espinoza's involvement in drug trafficking. After all, why would an innocent person be nervous when confronted by an armed agent of the state intent on searching his vehicle, implicating him in drug crimes, and seizing anything of value he might find? At the same time, Williams suggested that Espinoza was not nervous enough: "It is very obvious that Mr. Espinoza, during the whole stop which was filmed, was very stoic." Williams concluded that the state, which was no longer trying to prove its case, nevetheless had succeeded by meeting the "preponderance of the evidence" standard for civil forfeiture in Arkansas, meaning it was more likely than not that the money had something to do with illegal drugs. Williams rejected Espinoza's argument that the stop, detention, and search leading to the seizure were unconstitutional.

On appeal, Espinoza argued that Williams abused his discretion by refusing to let prosecutors drop the case, that the state had not met its burden of proof, and that the traffic stop was illegally extended to facilitate the canine inspection and search. The state appeals court declined to consider any of those issues because Espinoza missed the 30-day deadline for challenging Williams' decision and the 10-day deadline for extending the 30-day deadline. While concurring in that result, Judge Waymond Brown wrote separately to highlight the injustice Espinoza had suffered:

After exhaustive research and effort, I cannot see why the trial judge would decide to follow through with the forfeiture of Mr. Espinoza’s $19,894, when the charging agency moved to dismiss without prejudice, believing it lacked the evidence to confiscate the money....

In his order, the judge noted statements such as, "What are we going to do? They just found the money," and "Please don't find it, please don't find it" in determining that both Mr. Espinoza and his companion "knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road." Absent from the same order was the obvious language barrier that existed between Mr. Espinoza and the arresting officer, the officer's insistence that he had been a state trooper for sixteen years and there was only one reason someone would carry that much cash in his vehicle, the officer's apparent refusal to be shown text messages between Mr. Espinoza and the person from whom he said he wished to buy a truck, or even Mr. Espinoza's companion's statement, "You didn't tell me you had that money. You just told me we were coming to buy a truck."

Meanwhile, Mr. Espinoza presented the trial court with numerous paychecks from various construction jobs, as well as tax documents evidencing his argument that the money was lawfully earned. Nevertheless, the trial judge ordered forfeiture of the nearly $20,000. In response to Mr. Espinoza’s motion for reconsideration, the judge simply stated, "The Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is denied and without merit." He gave no further explanation. I am of the belief that unsubstantiated suspicions are not just cause for circumventing established judicial practices.

Nor should unsubstantiated suspicions be cause for taking someone's property, even when prosecutors decide to give it a try. As state legislators around the country are beginning to recognize, laws that allow forfeiture without a criminal conviction (or even criminal charges) are an invitation to highway robbery. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Arkansas lawfully seized $19,894 in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-64-505.

Garcia and Cervantes were transporting the money in a computer bag in a false compartment of the vehicle. A drug dog alerted on the bag, and nothing else. It was determined that the bag and money were used for drug trafficking.

On 17 July 2013, Garcia and Cervantes executed a Voluntary Disclaimer of Interest and Ownership of the $19,894.

On July 17, 2013 "[a]t 16:43 the Officer returns back to his unit where Mr. Espinoza is located and asks for consent to search and at 19:10 that consent was granted."

Garcia and Cervantes gave conflicting stories. The legal, technical term for what happened is B-U-S-T-E-D.

The ORDER of 30 Sep 2014 states,

The testimony from the officers showed that during there interviews there were inconsistent statements. One testified concerning they were going to a birthday party. The Defendant, Ms. Hernandez, stated they went to the Elvis Presley home in Graceland Mr. Espinoza testified that they only drove around and they changed their stories which were inconsistent with each other. Guillermo Garcia Espinoza stated he was going to purchase a truck in Memphis. During the examination by Trooper Overton, they became very nervous and were unsure of which trip they actually went on. The Trooper ask for consent and got verbal consent to search the vehicle. The dog alerted on a computer bag. They checked the computer bag which had a strange, lumpy exterior to it and inside that bag they found nineteen bundles of $l,000.00 each plus an additional $894.00 contained inside the computer bag. Both defendants signed a disclaimer of the money and absolutely understood what they were entering into.

Then, Mr. Espinoza testified he had gone to Memphis to purchase a truck and then testified they went over to the outside part of Graceland and then testified they went into Graceland but did not go into the gate but drove around the property.

Ms. Hernandez testified that she spent the night in a hotel in Little Rock and stated she did not go to Memphis. In thirteen minutes there were several inconsistent statements by the Defendants. The search request was made eighteen minutes into the stop.

It is very obvious that Mr. Espinoza, during the whole stop which was filmed, was very stoic and had his head down over 70% of the time. Once they arrived at Beason's Wrecker Service where the vehicle was further examined, Ms. Hernandez, once again, reaffirmed she went to Little Rock and Mr. Espinoza said they went to Memphis. They were at a friends house and she said she spent the night in a motel. Mr. Espinoza said he took the money from his saving account. He saved eight years to buy a 4x4 truck but didn't appreciate the values of the trucks.

The officer and defendants talked for approximately five minutest explaining where they had been after they were separated. At 11: 14 they discussed with Defendant, Espinoza, in the patrol car. At 12:05 at the stop the Officer goes to Ms. Hernandez in the vehicle. At 16:41 she confirms that they did not go to Graceland. At 16:43 the Officer returns back to his unit where Mr. Espinoza is located and asks for consent to search and at 19:10 that consent was granted.

Due to these inconsistences and statements and the appearance of nervousness of Mr Espinoza and a legitimate stop by law enforcement, the Court finds there are sufficient facts to justify confiscation of the property. Both parties signed disclaimers to the property that they disclaimed any interest in the vehicle, or the computer case.

A transcript of a conversation reveals:

V3: [U/I] damn it. [U/I] What are we going to say about the money?

[...]

V3: [U/I] He found it. They are going to find it, the are going to find it. [U/I].

V2: [U/I].

V3: [U/I] please don't find it, please don't find it.

V2: Be quiet.

V3: Oh, dear God. [U/I] we are fucked. [U/I] We are fucked, honey.

http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2010/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-64/subchapter-5/5-64-505

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 6 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare
Chapter 64 - Controlled Substances
Subchapter 5 - Uniform Controlled Substances Act -- Enforcement and Administration

§ 5-64-505 - Property subject to forfeiture -- Procedure -- Disposition of property.

(a) Items Subject to Forfeiture. The following are subject to forfeiture upon the initiation of a civil proceeding filed by the prosecuting attorney and when so ordered by the circuit court in accordance with this section, however no property is subject to forfeiture based solely upon a misdemeanor possession of a Schedule III, Schedule IV, Schedule V, or Schedule VI controlled substance:

[...]

(6) (A) Anything of value, including firearms, furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance or counterfeit substance in violation of this chapter, any proceeds or profits traceable to the exchange, and any money, negotiable instrument, or security used, or intended to be used, to facilitate any violation of this chapter.

(B) However, no property shall be forfeited under this subdivision (a)(6) to the extent of the interest of an owner by reason of any act or omission established by him or her, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been committed or omitted without his or her knowledge or consent;

(7) Rebuttable Presumptions. (A) Any money, coin, currency, or firearms found in close proximity to a forfeitable controlled substance, a counterfeit substance, forfeitable drug manufacturing or distributing paraphernalia, or a forfeitable record of an importation, manufacture, or distribution of a controlled substance or counterfeit substance is presumed to be forfeitable under this subdivision (a)(7).

(B) The burden of proof is upon a claimant of the property to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence; and

(8) Real property may be forfeited under this chapter if it substantially assisted in, facilitated in any manner, or was used or intended for use in the commission of any act prohibited by this chapter, however:

[...]

(c) Seizure of Property. Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by any law enforcement agent upon process issued by any circuit court having jurisdiction over the property on petition filed by the prosecuting attorney of the judicial circuit. Seizure without process may be made if:

(1) The seizure is incident to an arrest or a search under a search warrant or an inspection under an administrative inspection warrant;

(2) The property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the state in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding based upon this chapter;

(3) The seizing law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that the property is directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety; or

(4) The seizing law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that the property was used or is intended to be used in violation of this chapter.

[...]

- - - - -

- - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-11   13:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#1)

Arkansas lawfully seized $19,894

And that's the shame of it.

"State of Arkansas vs $19,894"?! Beyond surreal.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-11   14:25:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: ConservingFreedom (#2)

And that's the shame of it.

Yeah, the drug dealer signed a disclaimer of interest and ownership of $19,894 of drug money found in a drug tainted bag hidden in a false compartment in his truck and the government kept the ownerless money. That was a shame.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-11   17:12:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#3)

It was such an airtight case the prosecutor wanted to drop it.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-12   15:54:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)

It was such an airtight case the prosecutor wanted to drop it.

In Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Four Dollars ($19,894.00) in American Currency and Guillermo Garcia Espinoza v. State of Arkansas, CV-15-548, 2016 Ark. App. 244, OPINION delivered May 4, 2016 states APPEAL DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Loosely translated, with prejudice connotes do not bring that shit back here.

Judge Brown, concurring,

Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff in a civil suit may move to dismiss an action without prejudice before submission of the case to the trial court. Here, despite Mr. Espinoza’s request for a ruling on the State’s motion to dismiss the forfeiture, the trial judge withheld his ruling in order to receive a transcript of a conversation between Mr. Espinoza, his co-defendant, and, at times, the arresting officer, after the cash had been found and Mr. Espinoza had been detained in the back of a patrol car. The transcript was received by the trial court. In his order, the judge noted statements such as, “What are we going to do? They just found the money,” and “Please don’t find it, please don’t find it” in determining that both Mr. Espinoza and his companion “knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road.”

$19,000 of the money was found in a hidden compartment in a bag, and was hit on by a drug detection dog. The other $984 was found in Mr. Garcia's pocket.

The cited transcript read:

A transcript of a conversation reveals:

V3: [U/I] damn it. [U/I] What are we going to say about the money?

[...]

V3: [U/I] He found it. They are going to find it, they are going to find it. [U/I].

V2: [U/I].

V3: [U/I] please don't find it, please don't find it.

V2: Be quiet.

V3: Oh, dear God. [U/I] we are fucked. [U/I] We are fucked, honey.

As the judge “knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road,” it was forfeitable and the motion to drop the forfeiture action was denied.

As one mope said to the other, "We are fucked, honey."

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-12   17:16:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com