How about just obeying the law? Then you don't have to worry.

How about just obeying the law? Then you don't have to worry.

Bullshit.

“An officer’s first job when he gets you pulled over for a traffic stop is to attempt to escalate that stop to either a DUI or a drug bust. He doesn’t care about the traffic, that’s just his premise for pulling you over. His real goal is to get inside that car and see what else he can find.

They are taught to find ways to keep the person in the car talking and answering questions that will allow them to continue their fishing expedition.”

Cop Pulls Teen Over for Flashing High Beams, Tases Him, Eventually Shoots and Kills Him

Return of motorist’s $167,000 seized in Nevada highlights concern

In January, The Washington Post reported that state and local authorities have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under the equitable sharing program since 2008.

In the Elko case, the driver of the motor home, Straughn Gorman, was neither charged nor cited for a traffic violation — nor does he have a criminal record.

According to court documents, a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper first stopped Gorman for driving too slow in the fast lane, but after Gorman refused to let him search the motor home, he was allowed to go on his way.

The trooper then arranged for an Elko County sheriff’s deputy with a drug-sniffing dog to stop Gorman again, and the dog alerted the deputy to something suspicious in the motor home, documents show. The search turned up no drugs, but the $167,000 was found hidden in various places.

Sheriff’s deputies took Gorman’s motor home, his laptop and his money, leaving him with only a credit card. They were prepared to leave him on the highway outside Elko in the bitter January cold until he begged for a ride into town, said his Las Vegas lawyer, Vincent Savarese.

Authorities suspect Gorman, a Hawaii resident, was on his way to California to buy marijuana, though Gorman said he was going to visit his girlfriend in Sacramento.

The motor home, which belonged to his brother, and the laptop were eventually returned, but the $167,000 went to federal authorities for civil forfeiture.

"An officer’s first job when he gets you pulled over for a traffic stop is to attempt to escalate that stop to either a DUI or a drug bust."

Good luck with that. I don't drink or do drugs.

"The search turned up no drugs, but the $167,000 was found hidden in various places."

Show where the $167,000 came from and the cops will gladly return it. But he can't. Because it's drug money. So he can't keep it.

1. Keep quiet.

2. Don't say anything.

3. Shut up.

Wow, just wow. Now you need to prove where any and all money you may have has come from to the government?

PING

"Now you need to prove where any and all money you may have has come from to the government?"

Only if you want it back. You couldn't do that?

“Hi, do you know why I stopped you?”

The cops are pretty good where I live but one asked me this once and I replied :"I think you are supposed to tell me that"

Obviously she was told to ask that at each stop.

"The search turned up no drugs, but the $167,000 was found hidden in various places."

Show where the $167,000 came from and the cops will gladly return it. But he can't. Because it's drug money. So he can't keep it.

HAHA, I got some freepers mad at me when I posted on FR that carrying hundreds of thousands of $$ in cash in their car is very suspicious behavior.

Show where the $167,000 came from and the cops will gladly return it.

Does the phrase "presumption of innocence" ring a bell?

"Does the phrase "presumption of innocence" ring a bell?"

Yes. It applies to a person charged with a crime. He was not.

"HAHA, I got some freepers mad at me when I posted on FR that carrying hundreds of thousands of $$ in cash in their car is very suspicious behavior."

They're like the Borg. They have collective thought.

If nothing else, carrying around that kind of cash is stupid. It's how Brink's Trucks came to be big business. And yes, in this day and age, it's unnecessary and indeed suspicious.

If you have to carry that kind of cash, simply carry a receipt with you (a withdrawal slip from your bank, for example) and there's no problem.

It applies to a person charged with a crime. He was not.

So if one is not charged with a specific crime, one may rightly be required to prove one's innocence of any crime in order to retain possession of one's money?

carrying hundreds of thousands of $$ in cash in their car is very suspicious behavior

Suspicious behavior is at most grounds for a warrant - not for an extrajudicial fine that presumes one guilty until proven innocent.

If you have to carry that kind of cash, simply carry a receipt with you (a withdrawal slip from your bank, for example) and there's no problem.

DEA to traveler: Thanks, I’ll take that cash

It happened, Rivers said, to him on April 15 as he was traveling on Amtrak from Dearborn, Mich., near his hometown of Romulus, Mich., to Los Angeles to fulfill his dream of making a music video. Rivers, in an email, said he had saved his money for years, and his mother and other relatives scraped together the rest of the $16,000.

Rivers said he carried his savings in cash because he has had problems in the past with taking out large sums of money from out-of-state banks.

A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied.

In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope.

Live well slave, and use chap stick and Preparation H, it will be more comfortable.

It never ceases to amaze me what depths that poster will sink to cheer the actions of the police state.

"Rivers said he carried his savings in cash because he has had problems in the past ..."

Yeah, he's had problems all right.

"According to court documents, Rivers has been arrested at least four times since 2010 for drugs. He spent two years in jail and online records show he was arrested July 26, 2015 again for drugs.

The suit said after a felony drug charge in March of 2015, narcotics officers in Michigan executed a search warrant for Rivers’ phone. In the phone, officials said they found more than 120 text messages from people referencing or trying to buy illegal drugs from Rivers.

The suit also claims Rivers had traveled to California in the past to purchase illegal drugs for re-sale in Michigan. The DEA in Albuquerque said it’s drug dog sniffed out an illegal substance odor on Rivers’ money after they seized it.

http://krqe.com/2015/07/29/suit-filed-against-man-at-center-of-albuquerque-de dea-seizure-case/

http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=755570

"Suspicious behavior is at most grounds for a warrant - not for an extrajudicial fine that presumes one guilty until proven innocent."

There's plenty of evidence of drug activity, but probably not enough for a criminal charge that would stick. So law enforcement settled for what they could get.

There's plenty of evidence of drug activity, but probably not enough for a criminal charge that would stick.

If one can't be proven guilty, then no penalty should be imposed - including an extrajudicial fine that presumes one guilty until proven innocent.

"So if one is not charged with a specific crime, one may rightly be required to prove one's innocence of any crime in order to retain possession of one's money?"

He wasn't charged with a crime so he doesn't have to prove his innocence. His property was seized because there was probable cause to believe that the money was involved in a crime -- that it represents the proceeds of crime, that it is an instrumentality of crime, or that it somehow “facilitates” crime.

So he has to prove the innocence of the money. If he can, he will get his money back (with interest) and his legal bills will be paid. (under CAFRA)

he has to prove the innocence of the money.

"The innocence of the money"?! ROTFL! Only bootlickers and boot-wearers can utter such a phrase with a straight face.

There is a reason almost all law enforcement officers ask you that. It's so YOU provide oral admissions. They get documented on the officers copy of the traffic citation.

"The innocence of the money"?! ROTFL!"

I don't know why you're laughing. They've got your $167,000.

ConservingFreedom

That shit gobbler is only interested in freedom if his anarchy out trumps your freedom.

It's traffic stop 101.

There is a reason almost all law enforcement officers ask you that. It's so YOU provide oral admissions. They get documented on the officers copy of the traffic citation.

Of course.

Replying "for speeding...??..." is stupid.

Reply "I believe you are supposed to tell me that"

is only interested in freedom if his anarchy out trumps your freedom.

What "freedom" of misterwhite's - or yours - is upheld by the police seizing cash with no crime charged and requiring the seizee to prove their innocence before they can get their cash back?

"All the proof I would give is that it came from ME."

And you would never lie, even over $167,000.

"That shit gobbler is only interested in freedom if his anarchy out trumps your freedom."

Yep. He has rights! You don't.

What "freedom" of misterwhite's - or yours - is upheld

Freedom from crime.

Freedom from crime.

That freedom is upheld by arresting, charging, and convicting criminals - which has nothing to do with seizing money from those charged of nothing and putting the burden of proof on them under the comical charade that it's an action against the money not its owner.

Reply "I believe you are supposed to tell me that"

It's not an oral admission if the officer has to orate the drivers illegal conduct. lol

For me personally, I respect all the amendments... and I don't take it personal when someone says they'd like an attorney before speaking to me. With that said, sarcasm like "I believe you are suppose to tell me that" usually earns the operator every V&T charge that's applicable in the states 3,000 plus V&T sections of law.

I'll give you an example. In NYS, the operator must prove insurance on the car. The only proof an officer has to take is a VALID insurance card PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF THE V&T STOP. Now, many people forget to put the updated copy in their car every month, 3 months, 6 months or yearly, depending on how they break down their car insurance payments. NYS V&T law states that an officer must IMPOUND every vehicle on the maintained portion of the roadway without proof of insurance. With that said, 99% of the time I will just remind the driver to put an updated copy of the insurance in the car... and the 1% of the time a driver is a sarcastic asshole... I tow it.

all they have to prove is the money you have was a product of a crime.

Wrong as usual - once they've seized it on suspicion of involvement, YOU have to prove it WASN'T the product of a crime.

Anyone wanting to take my property legally must prove ME guilty, not the other way around. I am INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

That was before the War on Drugs. You're much safer now - trust us.

Craig himself never ticketed anyone during his time as a deputy sheriff. He only pulled people over who were driving dangerously, and if there was no criminal act then he would send them off with a warning to avoid dangerous driving.

I bet he was as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

“Everything these officers do is meant to trick you into something that they can actually arrest you for,” said Craig of Texas law enforcement. In the Lone Star state, as soon as a cop puts his lights on to pull you over, you are in custodial arrest. You are treated as if in custody, and anything you say can be used against you.

This claim is questionable. It seems to overreach when it claims a custodial arrest occurs when the cop puts his lights on.

Whatever you say can be used against you if you are not under custodial arrest. Statements cannot be used that are elicited after you clearly invoke your 5th Amendment rights.

Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182, 190-91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

(citations omitted)

The Penal Code Offense

Section 543.001 of the Transportation Code provides that "[a]ny peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle." A peace officer may, and in the case of a speeding violation, must, offer that person the option of signing a written notice and promise to appear in court in lieu of an immediate appearance before a magistrate. If the person signs the promise to appear, then he is immediately released from detention. If the person refuses to sign a promise to appear, he shall be immediately taken before a magistrate. Under these provisions, is a person "under arrest" for purposes of Section 38.01(1)(A) of the Penal Code, up to the point that he signs the promise to appear and is released, such that he can be prosecuted for failure to appear under Section 38.10(a) of the Penal Code? We have never addressed this precise question, and our precedents are ambiguous with respect to the exact nature and scope of the detention that occurs when a motorist is pulled over for a traffic violation and agrees to sign a citation and promise to appear to answer for the offense.

Courts have often declared, under predecessor provisions to the Transportation Code, that a peace officer may "arrest" anyone he witnesses committing any traffic offense "[e]xcept for the offense of speeding." But, strictly speaking, it is not true that the Transportation Code does not authorize the "arrest" of speeders. It just does not permit speeders to be "arrested" for any longer than it takes for the arresting officer to issue a citation (assuming the motorist is willing to sign the promise to appear). The seminal case construing the earliest incarnation of these Transportation Code provisions clearly contemplated that a motorist who was detained along the roadside for a speeding violation, and who agreed to sign a promise to appear in lieu of being taken immediately before a magistrate, was nevertheless initially "arrested" and then released from "custody" once he signed the citation. Later cases established that such an arrest does not amount to a "full custodial arrest," such that it would authorize the arresting officer to conduct a search-incident-to-arrest without first obtaining a search warrant. But the Transportation Code scheme clearly regards it as some form, degree, or gradation of "arrest," however fleeting. We said as much in State v. Kurtz, where we concluded that "[t]he [Transportation] Code makes it clear that its use of the term 'arrest' is not limited to custodial arrest."

"Anyone wanting to take my property legally must prove ME guilty, not the other way around."

That's true for criminal asset forfeiture. If you are arrested for a crime and your personal property is seized, the state must prove you guilty before they can keep it.

With civil asset forfeiture, YOU are not charged with a crime nor arrested. Your life and liberty are not threatened. The state's case is against the asset, which the state has reason to believe is part of a criminal act.

You are free to offer proof that it's not and claim the asset.

The state's case is against the asset

Lewis Carroll got nuthin' on you.