Posted on 09/28/2006 5:44:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper
Should all armed robbers have such protection and sympathy?
They were going to buy a house. Fine. Which one?
Whatever. It's a moot point. An update to the story confirms they were drug dealers. Now the asset forfeiture will be criminal, not civil.
You are so naive, it's embarrassing.
Yeah. I'm so naive I can't figure out that the bureaucrats can get infomation about your financial affairs from your bank on demand that they can't get from your personal records without a warrant. You'd want their money taken even if they were buying a house, because it was cash.
Hear. Hear!!
As I read it, it confirms they are being charged, not convicted, of intending to be drug dealers.
Sure is convenient (for the cops, that is). Steal $88,000.00, then get them indicted... Whether or not they were actually drug dealers the timing is just too convenient. So-called "asset forfeiture" is an abomination. If the government MUST steal someone's stuff, at least convict that person of an ACTUAL crime FIRST.
True. And as I read it, it confirms that the government intends to keep their drug money.
That's a 1991 article. CAFRA 2000 changed much of federal asset forfeiture laws.
No drugs were found, and the two men weren't charged with a crime, but officers did keep the money.
This is sometimes called grand theft and at other times armed robbery.
Because the "officers" had guns, I'd say this was armed robbery.
Huh? These drug dealers had $88,000 of drug money hidden in their car, not in their bank.
Civil asset forfeiture has been around since biblical times. This is nothing new.
Yep.
Whether you "think" they are criminals is NOT the standard.
I read about a guy who had about 20K in cash confiscated at the Atlanta airport. He had purchesed a one way ticket to New Orleans in cash and this alerted the "authorities."
Sounds criminal, right?
Well, it turned out the guy was a dealer of plants and trees, and he was on his way to Louisiana to buy a bunch of landscaping, and bring it back in a rented Ryder truck.
As far as I know he never got his money back.
Davidson County, NC is notorious for using I-85 as a hunting ground for finding drugs and "drug" money. I was a lot worse under Sheriff Hege, but he's toast now. At times there is a flying squadron of 3 or 4 unmarked sheriff's vehicles prowling and profiling cars with out-of-state plates. There's been many times when I've passed through there and seen entire families sitting on guard rail while a sheriff's deputy empties the contents of their car onto the shoulder of the highway. (and he's not changing the tire either)
In 2000, Congress passed CAFRA, which substantially changed the federal asset forfeiture laws. The government would have to file within 90 days, and the government now has the burden of proof (not the defendant). Also, Willie would have received his cash back, plus interest, and the federal government would have been responsible for his legal expenses.
The new laws corrected much of the past abuses. However, if you want to focus on these old stories, fine. When you're done, then we can talk about the history of slavery in the United States too.
They had $88,000 in cash. At the time it was seized it was unknown and irrelevant whether they were "drug dealers" or if this was "drug money". It was seized because it was "too much cash".
It's not too hard to figure out that the bureaucrats have an interest in making people conduct as much of their financial affairs as possible through banks because it makes the details of those affairs easily available to them. The don't want people conducting any substantial amount of their financial affairs in cash, and will do everything they can to discourage it.
Does CAFRA apply to each state's local law enforcement or only to federal agents?
The government would have to file within 90 days, and the government now has the burden of proof (not the defendant).
The government would have to file what within 90 days, charges aginst the person? Can they seize and hold on to the money during that 90 day period?
Willie Jones, a second-generation nursery man in his family's Nashville business, bundles up money from last year's profits and heads off to buy flowers and shrubs in Houston. He makes this trip twice a year using cash, which the small growers prefer.
But this time, as he waits at the American Airlines gate in Nashville Metro Airport, he's flanked by two police officers who escort him into a small office, search him and seize the $9,600 he's carrying. A ticket agent had alerted the officers that a large black man had paid for his ticket in bills, unusual these days. Because of the cash, and the fact that he fit a "profile" of what drug dealers supposedly look like, they believed he was buying or selling drugs.
He's free to go, he's told. But they keep his money - his livelihood - and give him a receipt in its place.
No evidence of wrongdoing was ever produced. No charges were ever filed. As far as anyone knows, Willie Jones neither uses drugs nor buys or sells them. He is a gardening contractor who bought an airplane ticket. Who lost his hard-earned money to the cops. And can't get it back. (From the Presumed Guilty series, by The Pittsburgh Press)
Whether you "think" they are criminals is NOT the standard.
Unfortunately, it seems to be (even post-CAFRA2K). "Presumption of innocence" is not required for civil forfeiture. Nice evasion of criminal requirements, eh?
Disclaimer: IANAL :-)
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.