Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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

click here to read article


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 (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ 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 (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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