Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/nypd-steals-18000-knife-law/
Published: Sep 16, 2016
Author: Alice Salles
Post Date: 2016-09-17 14:59:03 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14681
Comments: 50
In the past five years, the New York Police Department has spent $347,000 on false arrest lawsuit settlements. According to the Village Voice, these costs stem from the city’s “gravity knife statute.” Passed in 1958, the law banned New York residents from carrying knives fitted with blades that fall out of the handle as the user points them toward the ground while pushing the lever. This antiquated law is responsible for thousands of yearly arrests, despite the fact that current knife designs bear no resemblance to the blades of yesteryear. But estimates suggest that over the past ten years, this particular ban has been the reason for the prosecution of “60,000 New Yorkers … many of them working people who use folding knives as part of their jobs.” A recent incident shows another unintended consequence of upholding the gravity knife statute — one that cost a South Bronx resident $18,000. In a very public tweet, the NYPD announced Sunday that officers from Police Service Area 7 had “arrested a male for a gravity knife and vouchered $18,000 dollars cash for forfeiture.” The triumphant tweet, The Village Voice pointed out, even “[publicized the prisoner’s] name and address, down to the apartment number.” By coupling an outdated law with civil asset forfeiture rules — which in New York state, happen to be draconian — officers managed to take advantage of yet another property owner in order to “prop up” the local police budget. While few details about the arrest were made public, the Village Voice added, many on Twitter commented that the model of knife the arrestee was carrying “appear[ed] to be a style often carried by first responders, with a feature designed for safely cutting clothes and tangled seat belts after, say, a car accident.” The news outlet reached out to the NYPD for more information, but officers failed to respond with more details. The gravity knife ban was tweaked in June when Democrats added an amendment to the state law clarifying “the definition of a gravity knife by excluding any folding knife with a ‘bias toward closure.’” The change has yet to be signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. But even if it’s signed, this change to the state law does little to protect the New Yorkers’ constitutional right to own and carry any means of self-defense. Nevertheless, it could help to limit the number of individuals framed by the NYPD over folding knives and pocket knives, which are often “used for work or passed down in a family.” Even if the tweak to the state’s knife ban is finally signed into law, this measure, alone, will not be enough because the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws remain intact. Until serious criminal justice reforms are passed in the Empire State, New Yorkers will continue to be bullied in the name of policing for profit.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
This falsely claims forfeiture due to carrying banned pocket knife. Cash and other property is seized upon belief that is was involved in an illegal enterprise, such as drug dealing. If the owner can show that he lawfully possessed the money, he may get it back.
Fixed it.
Fixed it. They took the tambourine man's drug money. As long as you are learning that they due not seize the money because of knife possession, that is progress. If you like the word assumption, they had a reasonable assumption that the mope in the South Bronx housing projects with the $18,000 walking around money possessed dirty money. The purpose of the civil asset forfeiture law is to separate ill gotten gains from criminals. If the distinguished gentleman in the projects can show this was the day that he inherited $18,000 from his long lost uncle, he can get his money back. Ditto if the tambourine man can show he earned the money busking at the subway station. No name and few facts are provided. Here is the U.S. Supreme Court on civil asset forfeiture. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974) Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. No. 73-157 Argued January 7, 1974 Decided May 15, 1974 416 U.S. 663 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Syllabus A pleasure yacht, which appellee had leased to Puerto Rican residents, was seized, pursuant to Puerto Rican statutes providing for forfeiture of vessels used for unlawful purposes, without prior notice to appellee or the lessees and without a prior adversary hearing, after authorities had discovered marihuana aboard her. Appellee was neither involved in nor aware of a lessee's wrongful use of the yacht. Appellee then brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. A three-judge District Court, relying principally on Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, held that the statutes' failure to provide for pre-seizure notice and hearing rendered them unconstitutional, and that, as applied to forfeit appellee's interest in the yacht, they unconstitutionally deprived an innocent party of property without just compensation. Held: 1. The statutes of Puerto Rico are "State statute[s]" for purposes of the Three-Judge Court Act, and hence a three-judge court was properly convened under that Act, and direct appeal to this Court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Pp. 416 U. S. 669-676. 2. This case presents an "extraordinary" situation in which postponement of notice and hearing until after seizure did not deny due process, since (1) seizure under the statutes serves significant governmental purposes by permitting Puerto Rico to assert in rem jurisdiction over the property in forfeiture proceedings, thereby fostering the public interest in preventing continued illicit use of the property and in enforcing criminal sanctions; (2) pre-seizure notice and hearing might frustrate the interests served by the statutes, the property seized often being of the sort, as here, that could be removed from the jurisdiction, destroyed, or concealed, if advance notice were given; and (3), unlike the situation in Fuentes v. Shevin, supra, seizure is not initiated by self-interested private parties, but by government officials. Pp. 416 U. S. 676-680. Page 416 U. S. 664 3. Statutory forfeiture schemes are not rendered unconstitutional because of their applicability to the property interests of innocents, and here the Puerto Rican statutes, which further punitive and deterrent purposes, were validly applied to appellee's yacht. Pp. 416 U. S. 680-690. 363 F.Supp. 1337, reversed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which STEWART, J., joined. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 416 U. S. 691. STEWART, J., filed a separate statement; post, p. 416 U. S. 690. DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which STEWART, J., joined in part, post, p. 416 U. S. 691. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. [...]
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
Really? Tell it to this guy. Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash (Prosecutors tried to drop the forfeiture case, but the judge would not let them.) It's not clear why Arkansas State Police Sgt. Dennis Overton decided to stop (Guillermo) 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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest NYPD Steals $18,000 from Man Because He Was Carrying a Banned Pocket Knife
#4. To: nolu chan (#1)
Cash and other property is seized upon
belief assumption that is was involved in an illegal enterprise
#5. To: Deckard (#4)
Cash and other property is seized upon
belief assumption that is was involved in an illegal enterprise U.S. Supreme Court
Replies to Comment # 5. If the distinguished gentleman in the projects can show this was the day that he inherited $18,000 from his long lost uncle, he can get his money back.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]