Posted on 12/11/2014 9:59:54 AM PST by MichCapCon
A man featured in a Dec. 3 Michigan Capitol Confidential story for being a medical marijuana user and having his property seized and money taken by police without being charged with a crime was arrested at 2 a.m. the next morning by the Michigan State Police within a day after the story was published.
Wally Kowalski says he was woken Wednesday to find the police at his door with a felony warrant. He was handcuffed and brought to the Van Buren County Jail where he spent the night in a cold cell without a pillow or blanket. He was arraigned in the morning and released after posting $1,000 on a $10,000 bond.
The police charged Kowalski with delivery and manufacture of 5 to 45 kilograms of marijuana, between 20 and 200 plants, a 7-year felony and/or carrying up to a $500,000 fine. He was also charged with distribution without remuneration, a misdemeanor.
Kowalski carries a medical marijuana card for himself and says he is the caregiver for four other valid cardholders. When police searched his house on Sept. 2, they could not find two caregiver cards. Kowalski says he lost the cards but did get replacements days later and turned them over to the police.
Under Michigan’s medical marijuana law, he is legally allowed to grow 12 plants per person. According to the seizure order, police found 55 plants.
When Kowalski asked if his arrest has anything to do with the report, he said police told him they have never heard of the publication.
“Originally, the detective on the case told me he would call me if they issued an arrest warrant so I could submit voluntarily. I can’t see the necessity of arresting me in the middle of the night,” Kowalski said.
His attorney, Daniel Grow thought the overnight arrest was unusual, as well.
“On these kinds of charges, I get most of my clients in during the day when the courts are opened and they can avoid a night’s stay in jail,” Grow said.
The commander of the Southwest Enforcement Team, Lieutenant Wayne Eddington, did not return a call for comment.
Michigan Capitol Confidential began inquiring about civil asset forfeitures on Nov. 7. Eddington did return a phone call and spoke about forfeitures in general terms but was not asked about specific cases. On Nov. 21, Michigan Capitol Confidential called the Van Buren County Clerk for a copy of Kowalski’s petition for seizure order. On Nov. 24-26, Michigan Capitol Confidential left messages for Special Prosecutor Cory Johnson, Eddington and the media representative at the Michigan State Police about discussing specific cases. None of the calls were returned. On Nov. 24, police got the arrest warrant on Kowalski. Three days later, they released the hold on his bank accounts. He was arrested Dec. 4. Kowalski is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 15 and Dec. 17.
Under state and federal law, police departments can seize and keep property that is suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home, or other property. And according to a new report published by the Institute for Justice, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” most state laws are written in such a way as to encourage police agents to pursue profit instead of seeking the neutral administration of justice.
http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture
In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them “little goodies.” And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man’s “exotic vehicle” outside a local bar.
“A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” he explained. “Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like ‘Ahhhh.’ And he gets out and he’s just reeking of alcohol. And it’s like, ‘Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.’”
I know; believe me, I know.
So my Barney T. Fife decides to pull you over while your driving your just paid off 2013 Ford F150 4x4. They decide you have shifty eyes, probably a doper. They confiscate your vehicle claiming you paid for it with Drug money. Money or any other Item of Personal Property can and has been "acquired" by the Gestapo using these tactics. Be thankful you haven't crossed paths with one of them. Too many cases that never get resolved while Rambo Junior gets to play with others personal property with out even a hearing, let alone just cause.
Your quote:
“someone was found not guilty but the civil forfeiture case is against the property, not you, so losing your home or car or money isn’t considered double jeopardy.”
But how can money, an inanimate, non sentient object, be guilty of anything? It needs a human actor to do anything. And if the human that owns and controls it is not guilty, then logically, the money or object is also not guilty. if I didn’t do something, then my money didn’t do it either.
Asset forfeiture is corruption.
no, you’re an idiot for not understanding that the government’s constraints are in fact vis a vis American citizens - yes - in fact - since you persist in that flapdoodle - you are.
Which is why the constraint No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed
obviously doesn't apply to non-citizens! Yes, we can just pass retroactive bills of attainder declaring them guilty because the constitutions constraints are only for the citizen! And then we could also pass laws stripping people of their citizenship if, say, they claim that the Constitution binds the government… and then use more bills of attainder to punish those non-citizens!
[/sarc]
I can only assume that you are against strict readings of the Constitution's constraints because you are against the weakening of your [apparent] god: government.
This is what it boils down to.
But there are many who have swallowed the lie that the government [and its actions] are good if they can say it's legal
.
you are trying to do a bureaucratic left brained retardo move...you are all about constraining the government, but applying it to the entire world. This was WRITTEN FOR A SPECIFIC AUDIENCE - NOT THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN PLANET.
That is actually the job of the state/prosecutor/district attorney after police have done their work. It is the Police Department's (Law Enforcement) job to enforce the laws on the books, not interpret laws; simple enforcement. If the "state" gets it wrong the charges are dismissed (and a that point the "defendant" should sue the crap out of the district.
The question that needs asked is what law was broken by having $20,000.00 in a trunk and can they prove the $20,000.00 was in fact tied to illicit, illegal activity. Confiscation of that money without being charged then having the staties come in with a separate warrant stinks of a department lining its pockets.
Total jackboot licking BS. You need to learn the difference between suspicion and conviction. J'accuse ...
No, applying it to the government means that the government is not allowed to violate the constraints. If the stipulation is that no warrant shall issue but upon oath/affirmation of probable cause
that doesn't mean that the government can ignore the requirement because the person they're investigating isn't a citizen. — What you're asserting is that the rules that bind government don't apply when the person the government harms by violating those rules isn't a citizen
If the rules don't apply for Person-X, what makes you think that those exceptions won't be expanded to [someday] include you?
They've already done it to ex-felons, those who have already served their sentence WRT firearms via ex post facto law (the prohibited persons
qualifier that this falls under applied to people serving their sentence or who had already served it).
This was WRITTEN FOR A SPECIFIC AUDIENCE - NOT THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN PLANET.
I agree it was written for/to a speciffic audience, but the subject thereof is our government, independent of geographic location; if our government isn't bound by it, what does it matter?
no, the subject is us you - YOU ARE THE DENSEST FREEPER OF ALL - the government is only constrained from what they can do to US - and US is citizens.
Period.
Great, so all the government has to do to deprive us of those protections is to strip us of our citizenship. But it's not like they would interpret item 7 conviction for an act of treason against the Government of the United States or for attempting to force to overthrow the Government of the United States to include say, a TEA party rally.
No, it's absurd to think that they'd use legalistic maneuvering to deny their opponents trials. To strip them of wealth and property under color of law… ignore the fact we're on a Civil Asset Forfeiture thread. [/sarc]
You should not have to explain to anyone for any reason why you might have any amount of cash on or about your person.
The government cannot strip us of citizenship - and any government that would try is not going to be constrained by any damned document.
What a straw argument.
You are way over your head and out of your league here.
“apparently the male attribute of logical thinking (left-brain) is utterly inadiquate and must bow down before the more feminine “logic” of feeling. “
Hey, watch it! I’m a female engineer and can match logical thinking with the best of you. Like you said, those courses had zero PC material in them. Plus I know the majority of my professors were conservatives - and most had a real job outside of teaching. Consulting usually.
First, when the opponent starts attacking you with insults and flinging nasty words at you, you know you have won ;)
But second, I am sick to death of foreigners invading MY country and turning it into a 3rd world cesspool. At this stage of being forced to leave a state because it’s no longer the US, I’d be fine with noncitizens having no rights at all. Illegals appear to have more rights than citizens in my area. I AM that incensed. That’s what happens when TPTB force something against our will down our throats. Yes, I am using emotion vs logic right now. Being mad is an appropriate emotion at the invasion, IMO. Let me move to the US in 2 months and I might have a different point of view.
That's a new one. Never heard that Libertarians are responsible for depreciation of our basic civil liberties.
Its amusing to me to read how many libs here at FR believe Eric Garner was killed over cigarette taxes.
No, he was killed for resisting arrest for selling untaxed "losie" cigarettes to financially challenged people who can't afford to pay $14 for a pack of smokes, thanks to the high nanny taxes in NY and NJ.
Why, the cops should have just let him go when he began resisting arrest.
They should not have tried to arrest him in the first place for a what can only be described as a nanny state nuisance crime.
Just like the cops should let you go with $20,000 in drug profits in your trunk.
No, the cops should first arrest the person for the underlying drug crime based upon probable cause. The way the law is written, however, the cops can seize the alleged proceeds or instrumentalities of a crime even if they never arrest and charge the person whose property has been seized with the alleged crime that provides the basis for the seizure.
The best part is that the police departments get to keep large chunks of the proceeds of the seized property, which they can use to buy even more military toys to suppress anyone who questions there authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.