Seizure laws - are they fair?

[padren]

Just ran across this article, and I didn't realize it was this black and white:

 

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090322/LOCAL/303229940/-1/LOCAL11

 

In the situation with the $26,000, police seized the money because the driver could not give an adequate reason for having that much money. First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs. The passenger said he had no clue about the money.

 

Those factors allowed police to take the money.

 

Getting a traffic ticket, and no charges yet you can have cash seized because the officer decides you don't have a good enough reason to explain that much cash? I knew if you had even a small amount of drugs a vehicle they can seize any money and the vehicle, but I had no idea they could just take your money and run.

 

What are everyone's thoughts - is this constitutional?

[YT2095]

I`m sure if he can show where he got it from he`ll be given it back, although that may be hard to demonstrate if he`d been saving it up in a biscuit tin under his bed for a few years

[CaptainPanic]

That looks like "Guilty until proven not guilty"... which seems like completely the wrong way around.

 

But it is in line with all developments worldwide.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, if that's really how it works, then that's pretty outrageous. It's actually making me angry thinking about it.

[Phi for All]

First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs.

Why are these two things considered conflicting responses? One is about what the money is for and the other regarding where it came from. :confused:

[JohnB]

Yeah, if that's really how it works, then that's pretty outrageous.

Yes, that is how it works. Odd that you lot haven't heard of it. I read abut it some years ago in an article about how US rights were being taken away.

I`m sure if he can show where he got it from he`ll be given it back,

Don't bet on it. IIRC in some areas the confiscating cop and the judge both get a cut if it is decided to keep the money.

[Sisyphus]

Well, I knew money could be seized as evidence for a specific crime even if it wasn't already proven to be illegally obtained. I can understand that. But this is seizure from someone who is not even accused of any crime, let alone a crime in connection with the cash in question, and that's ridiculous. That's not even "guilty until proven innocent." That's "guilty of something until proven innocent of everything." I'm supposed to be able to account for where all my money and property came from to the arbitrary satisfaction of any police officer who asks me, or else it can be seized until I prove my innocence of some unspecified crime I haven't even been accused of? What the hell.

[ParanoiA]

I cannot believe this. Insane. Why do they stop at money? It's property we're talking about, so why not confiscate my CD's if I can't explain how I got them? Or the car, itself? Oh yeah, cuz the money is liquid.

 

I don't see how this is constitutional in the least. Somehow they're getting away with it, though.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Having that much cash is not a crime, but police have the right to seize it if they suspect it has been used or procured through criminal means. Most of the money seized comes from drug cases and can then be used by various law enforcement agencies.

 

So if they "suspect" my fancy rims were procured through criminal means, do they get to take those too?

 

I'm floored. Government seizing private citizen property through mere suspicion.

 

I think I know what's next if we let these things go...Let me see your papers.

[visceral]

That makes my ****ing blood boil.

 

So he had a lot of money with him? How does that make him a criminal? He could have just taken it out of the ****ing bank...

[tomgwyther]

Just had a browse over the net.

It seems police in the UK can do a similar thing (Well, Kent county anyway)

Although the amount must be over £1000; in conjunction with a criminal investigation.

Moreover, the money must be retained in an appropriate interest bearing bank account.

If the British coppers are good with money, it might be a good way to invest!

[bascule]

[redacted]

[waitforufo]

I cannot believe this. Insane. Why do they stop at money? It's property we're talking about, so why not confiscate my CD's if I can't explain how I got them? Or the car, itself? Oh yeah, cuz the money is liquid.

 

I don't see how this is constitutional in the least. Somehow they're getting away with it, though.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

So if they "suspect" my fancy rims were procured through criminal means, do they get to take those too?

 

I'm floored. Government seizing private citizen property through mere suspicion.

 

I think I know what's next if we let these things go...Let me see your papers.

 

They do all the things you mention. I think 60 minutes or some similar program did a special on this a few years back. Several people who had been stopped for minor traffic violations and were found to have a few thousand dollars in their possession had not only their money but their vehicles confiscated. All of them had reasonable explanations for why they had the money on them. One person was one vacation and did not have any credit cards so he brought cash.

 

There was also a case in Washington State where a person who was running an air taxi service had his aircraft confiscated because one of his passengers had less than one ounce of marijuana on his person. I don't believe the pilot ever got his aircraft back.

[padren]

In the context of this thread, I found this article especially funny:

 

http://www.cbs8.com/global/story.asp?s=10058128

 

The DEA isn't going to let this one go. Thousands of dollars in drug money went flying out the window as a couple of suspects tried to ditch it during a chase. Now authorities want the cash back from the San Diegans who picked it up.

 

[CaptainPanic]

Why are these two things considered conflicting responses? One is about what the money is for and the other regarding where it came from. :confused:

 

You realize that the police aren't trained and are not expected to be able to answer your question, right? The questions asked don't have to make sense. The answers given may be 100% correct and true. It just has to seem suspicious... and you're guilty.

 

Tomorrow's news: "Enormous increase in corruption by police officers". I wonder if the people whose 26000 was taken even got a receipt... it may have just disappeared.

 

[sarcasm]I'm so glad that our world has become so much safer over the last years, with the increased power for police and the enormous increase in security measures worldwide.[/sarcasm]

[SH3RL0CK]

CP, If the $26000 just disappeared, you would not be hearing about it as it wouldn't have been entered into any police records (unless of course you were a building contractor and a police officer starts building a new addition on his house). Once it is in the police records, that would actually be better than a receipt insofar as establishing where the money now in the possession of the police department came from.

 

Seriously, what would keep the officer from taking the money for himself and saying nothing...no police report filed??

 

Now I'm not so naive to believe that the money was obtained legally (though it could have been), it is much more likely that it was stolen, or drug-related cash. Which only makes the possibility of corruption more likely as the drug dealer might be more than happy to let the money go (if its not too much) in exchange for no police record (or a lesser police record such as trespassing).