re: IL couple still haven't gotten truck and money stolen by cops back in 2012

quote:

---

Attorney's often take on civil cases with no up front costs to the client. They get paid when they win

---

great.

So I have to give 40% of my money to lawyer to get the other 60% back?


Cops know this, too. That's why they steal in the first place.

It gets worse, and the amounts can be pretty small:

The Washington Post analyzed 400 seizures in 17 states which were examples of equitable sharing arrangements.[25] Police stop motorists under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant; however, of the 400 seizures studied by the Washington Post, police did not make any arrests.[25]


Javier Gonzalez was carrying $10,000 cash in a briefcase and got pulled over in Texas; deputies handed Gonzalez a waiver, that if he signed over the money and did not claim it later, he would not be arrested, but if he refused to sign the waiver, Gonzalez would be arrested for money-laundering.[14] Gonzalez signed the waiver wondering if the officers were real "officers of law" and wondering if he got robbed, but later sued the county, which lost, and returned his cash plus paid him $110,000 in damages plus attorney's fees.[14]
Matt Lee of Clare, Michigan was driving to California with $2,500 cash when pulled over by police in Nevada, who seized almost all of the cash under suspicion that it was a "drug run"; Lee hired an attorney who took half of his fee, leaving Lee with only $1130 remaining.[25]

I just couldn’t believe that police could do that to anyone ... It’s like they are at war with innocent people.

—?Matt Lee, interviewed in the Washington Post, 2013[25]

Tan Nguyen. In 2008, a federal judge ordered $20,000 returned to a man after police seized the money during a traffic stop in Nebraska, after reviewing a recording of the seizure in which a sheriff's deputy suggested that we "take his money and, um, count it as a drug seizure."[12] Tan Nguyen's $50,000 was confiscated by police during a traffic stop, and the county agreed to return the funds after a legal challenge.[26]
In May 2010 a couple was driving from New York to Florida and they were stopped by police because of a cracked windshield.[25] During questioning, the officer decided that $32,000 cash in the van was "probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity", seized it, shared it with federal authorities under equitable sharing.[25] The victim hired a lawyer to get back the seized money who urged settling for half of the seized amount, and after the lawyer's fees, the victim only got back $7,000.[25]

Above from Wiki

quote:

---

So I have to give 40% of my money to lawyer to get the other 60% back?

---

You are taking my reply out of the context as to who and what I was replying to. He was suggesting that people can't afford to hire an attorney which is bullshite. Also you can sue for the return of the illegally seized funds plus additional damages for the illegal search.

I am not defending misbehavior by a police officer. Point being that many don't even try to fight the matter in court. Usually because it's drug running money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

quote:

---

I see your point, but a lot of drug money is taken off the streets with this weapon

---

So?

quote:

---

I believe though that it needs to up to the police to prove that it's drug money not up to the person who had the money.

---

The problem is the only way to do such a thing is to seize the cash. You can't prove money was drug money if they spend it all before trial.

I feel it's pretty black and white. Civil asset forfeiture is a scam. It's the product of the biggest scam in recent history, the war on drugs. Cops think they are doing something noble by "taking drugs off the street." As if that statement somehow gives legitimacy to to their cause. There was never any good intentions behind any of these laws. It is, and always has been, a money grab and a way for law makers/enforcers to impose their will on the people around them.

It is a weapon to take money from drug dealers and cartels limiting their effectiveness. You can take the profits and a lot of times it is very easy to prove that the forfeitures are drug profits. I have proven many of these cases. The problem is that you have a lot of departments who only see the dollar signs and they set up just to take money. Look on I-10. East bound cars are full or drugs, westbound the cash is headed back to Texas/Mexico. The departments that are only after the cash ignore the east bound traffic and work the west bound lanes only. These departments are only concerned with the cash and not taking drugs off the streets.

I was happy in with either because I knew that any time we got a big load of drugs or cash we had hurt the dealers.

I don't like the way a lot of departments focus on only getting cash and especially if the cash isn't really drug money. Most of the dealers don't even show up to contest the cash.

As I said earlier, the process should be a lot harder and the proof should be on the police to show that the money is drug money. I would rather err on the side of caution than take a hard working innocent person's money.

quote:

---

The Washington Post analyzed 400 seizures in 17 states which were examples of equitable sharing arrangements.[25] Police stop motorists under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant; however, of the 400 seizures studied by the Washington Post, police did not make any arrests.[25]


Javier Gonzalez was carrying $10,000 cash in a briefcase and got pulled over in Texas; deputies handed Gonzalez a waiver, that if he signed over the money and did not claim it later, he would not be arrested, but if he refused to sign the waiver, Gonzalez would be arrested for money-laundering.[14] Gonzalez signed the waiver wondering if the officers were real "officers of law" and wondering if he got robbed, but later sued the county, which lost, and returned his cash plus paid him $110,000 in damages plus attorney's fees.[14]
Matt Lee of Clare, Michigan was driving to California with $2,500 cash when pulled over by police in Nevada, who seized almost all of the cash under suspicion that it was a "drug run"; Lee hired an attorney who took half of his fee, leaving Lee with only $1130 remaining.[25]

I just couldn’t believe that police could do that to anyone ... It’s like they are at war with innocent people.

—?Matt Lee, interviewed in the Washington Post, 2013[25]

Tan Nguyen. In 2008, a federal judge ordered $20,000 returned to a man after police seized the money during a traffic stop in Nebraska, after reviewing a recording of the seizure in which a sheriff's deputy suggested that we "take his money and, um, count it as a drug seizure."[12] Tan Nguyen's $50,000 was confiscated by police during a traffic stop, and the county agreed to return the funds after a legal challenge.[26]
In May 2010 a couple was driving from New York to Florida and they were stopped by police because of a cracked windshield.[25] During questioning, the officer decided that $32,000 cash in the van was "probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity", seized it, shared it with federal authorities under equitable sharing.[25] The victim hired a lawyer to get back the seized money who urged settling for half of the seized amount, and after the lawyer's fees, the victim only got back $7,000.[25]

Above from Wiki

---

Frick all of that. That is disgusting. I still think people are stupid for traveling with that much cash though.

quote:

---

It is a weapon to take money from drug dealers and cartels limiting their effectiveness. You can take the profits and a lot of times it is very easy to prove that the forfeitures are drug profits. I have proven many of these cases. The problem is that you have a lot of departments who only see the dollar signs and they set up just to take money. Look on I-10. East bound cars are full or drugs, westbound the cash is headed back to Texas/Mexico. The departments that are only after the cash ignore the east bound traffic and work the west bound lanes only. These departments are only concerned with the cash and not taking drugs off the streets.

I was happy in with either because I knew that any time we got a big load of drugs or cash we had hurt the dealers.

I don't like the way a lot of departments focus on only getting cash and especially if the cash isn't really drug money. Most of the dealers don't even show up to contest the cash.

As I said earlier, the process should be a lot harder and the proof should be on the police to show that the money is drug money. I would rather err on the side of caution than take a hard working innocent person's money.

---

All of this

quote:

---

couple was stopped for speeding on Interstate 80

---

Moral of the story. Don't speed with money and guns in your car. It will be gone for sure. Cops have needs too.

quote:

---

Moral of the story. Don't speed with money and guns in your car. It will be gone for sure. Cops have needs too.

---

I have never understood why people don't drive with cruise on anyways. I set that shite to 69 and let it ride

It provides a perverse incentive to the police. The incentive becomes to find rich targets to rob, not dangerous targets from which they can protect the public. It's a bad tool. The war on drugs has provided many such perverse incentives to police. I'm philosophically opposed to the entire idea of the War on Drugs though, so there's that.