Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case
News Channel 5 ^ | May 09, 2012 | Phil Williams

Posted on 05/15/2012 8:01:29 AM PDT by the_devils_advocate_666

MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."

That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.

For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call "policing for profit."

In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.

"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.

As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.

"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."

In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.

But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency." Read Officer Bates' affidavit

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.

"It's possible," he admitted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?

"He did," the officer acknowledged.

"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."

So why did he leave that out?

"I don't know," the officer said.

Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."

"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."

And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.

That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.

"Were you convicted?" we wanted to know.

"No, I wasn't convicted," he answered.

But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money.

"Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said.

Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.

"We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said.

"Nobody cares."

This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.

After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.

They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.

He got the check, but no apology.

"If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said.

And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.

"I really don't want to come back here," he said.

As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.

It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.

And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.

He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.

Miles called that "extortion."

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; drugs; drugwar; goldendonut; police; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Tublecane

The guy in the article was from out of state though. That is what I meant, if you weren’t local.

41 posted on 05/15/2012 10:36:04 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I don’t disagree with anything you stated, I know the way things should be but deal with what is.

About 5 or 6 years ago, I was traveling and crossed a state line into Oklahoma and was immediately pulled over by a cop, for not signaling when I merged, he was right, I didn’t signal. He asked for my drivers license, registration and proof of insurance.

I readily found the first two but could not find the insurance card in the glove boxes, he went back to his car while I continued to look. He was on the way back when I popped the trunk lid from inside the car to look there, he casually closed the trunk as he came back by it and said to me, “Never mind that card, I know you have insurance”, handed me my stuff back and wished me a good day.

I asked him how he knew I had insurance. He said, “60 years old, new car, you’ve got insurance”.

On the other hand, when my two sons were 16 and 17 years old they were stopped and had their vehicles searched average a couple times a week. I went to the police chief in our small city (population about 35,000) He said that was about the same number of times they stopped his son too.

Police have a lot of discretion and I really don’t have a problem with “profiling” for druggies and terrorists.

By the way, my youngest son is now a policeman in the same city. He told me that he once pulled a kid over for speeding and asked him for consent to search him, the kid says sure, so the first thing my son did was pull his sock type cap off and out fell a baggie of grass.

Here comes the kicker. The kid with the pot had two options, accept an “ordinance violation” fine $250 and it would not appear on his record or a ticket and go to court and pay a $75 fine and it would go on his record.

The kid accepted the ordinance violation and the whole $250 goes to the city, no sharing with the county. It’s a rotten system and my son agrees but as he points out to me, he doesn’t make the rules, he also said the kid was noticeably high and driving erratically or he wouldn’t have given him any kind of ticket or asked to search him to begin with.

He also polled his fellow officers about citizen concealed carry (this is Illinois) and all 45 - 50 of them were for it, no exceptions. It remains that Illinois is the only state to have no carry for ordinary law abiding citizens.

42 posted on 05/15/2012 10:37:47 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, I'll rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Are you a Free Mason?

43 posted on 05/15/2012 10:38:45 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, I'll rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

“The kid with the pot had two options, accept an ‘ordinance violation’ fine $250 and it would not appear on his record or a ticket and go to court and pay a $75 fine and it would go on his record.”

That’s called extortion.

44 posted on 05/15/2012 10:42:49 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
About a week old but search didn't turn up anything. This should really get some FR folks blood boiling.

You'll find more supporters of this kind of 'legal' theft here than you'd think.

His first mistake was answering the thug's question about the cash. Is second was agreeing to a search.

Rule number one: Don't answer questions other than your name and address. Rule number two: If they want to search, they need a warrant.

45 posted on 05/15/2012 11:07:59 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

“Miles called that “extortion.”

No, that is way too fancy a word.

It’s just theft.

Interesting that they have a law like this that discriminates against out of state people, much to their disadvantage. Is that legit?

You should really not be able to seize anyone’s property under suspicion of criminal activity without actually charging them with a crime.

I mean, is that constitutional?

46 posted on 05/15/2012 11:08:58 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

Hello? Alarm bells.

The answer is "No".

Actually, the answer is "Why do you ask, officer?" If you say "no" and they come up with some pretext to search, and find it, you are on record as having lied to them about it.

'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?'

The answer "Yes I mind. You may NOT search my vehicle."

Yup. Not without a warrant.

47 posted on 05/15/2012 11:12:51 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
Laws like that,if modified,might be useful here.”Modified” meaning if there's *legitimate* reason to believe that the money is the product of criminal activity then the state gets to seize it temporarily.Within “x” number of days of the seizure the state must file criminal charges related to the alleged crime that is alleged to be the source of the money seized.If they fail to meet that deadline then they *must* return the $$$ to the person.If they *meet* the deadline then the state gets to keep the $$$ until a verdict is reached in the criminal case.A guilty verdict (or plea) results in permanent forfeiture.”Not guilty” or charges dropped means the person gets it back.
48 posted on 05/15/2012 11:48:11 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Shout that one from the rooftops, Brother!

49 posted on 05/15/2012 11:48:21 AM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

Do we get to play “Robin Hood” when they play “Sheriff of Nottingham”?

50 posted on 05/15/2012 12:35:06 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

“But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit”

There is the key phase, folks...

Do some research on the subject “Affidavit of Truth”.

51 posted on 05/15/2012 8:06:09 PM PDT by phockthis ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Welcome to the USSA, comrade.

52 posted on 05/16/2012 4:48:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson