Posted on 02/01/2010 12:25:31 PM PST by Señor Zorro
Around 3 in the morning on January 7, 2009, a 22-year-old college student named Anthony Smelley was pulled over on Interstate 70 in Putnam County, Indiana. He and two friends were en route from Detroit to visit Smelley’s aunt in St. Louis. Smelley, who had recently received a $50,000 settlement from a car accident, was carrying around $17,500 in cash, according to later court documents. He claims he was bringing the money to buy a new car for his aunt.
[snip]
But a subsequent hand search of the car turned up nothing except an empty glass pipe containing no drug residue in the purse of Smelley’s girlfriend. Lacking any other evidence, police never charged anybody in the car with a drug-related crime. Yet not only did Putnam County continue to hold onto Smelley’s money, but the authorities initiated legal proceedings to confiscate it permanently.
Smelley’s case was no isolated incident. Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset forfeiture. And under many state laws, the situation is even worse: State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, owners of seized property all too often have a heavier burden of proof than the government officials who stole their stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Nonsense. Officials should not be able to confiscate property until after conviction of a crime.
The police are addicted to the “War on (Some) Drugs”.
“Nonsense. Officials should not be able to confiscate property until after conviction of a crime.”
Impounding is new?
The last page of the article says that, 1 year after the event, Smelley is still waiting for his day in court to argue that his property should be returned.
How can it be Constitutional for the government to seize property without charging, let alone convicting, anyone of a crime? The scenario has the police finding nothing with which they could charge anyone, yet keeping the property. You do not see a problem with this?
Riiiggghhht.
And if they confiscate a ton of marijuana, they should give it back until after the trial?
Sheesh!
“Just another pro-drug article using forfeiture laws as a lame excuse to surrender in the WOD.”
In lower SC they are dividing up I-95 because all counties are not getting their fair share. These same counties are not protecting their Citizens because they are more interested in the forfeiture money.
I have testified in a DUI case in LA where Deputies let an intoxicated driver leave after stopping him, and finding an open ice chest on the front seat and empties on the floor without arresting him. He then went to to kill a family within 10 miles. They were waiting on the interstate because of a tip that a large shipment of money was coming through. I don’t think they stopped any money car that night.
You can solve the problem by requiring all money to go to the State general fund instead of the individual departments if it violates a law.
PS. You can’t sue them they were acting within the bounds of their job.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
There’s nothing new about this. Police have confiscated cash, cars, and even houses in connection with drug busts, and they’ve done so for many years.
It certainly is subject to abuse, but I’m not sure if it was abused in this instance.
No comparison between money and drugs. One is legal the other is not.
Thank you for reading the entire article. I did not/will not.
Smelly will probably get his money back. Eventually. He is a dumb kid who made a stupid mistake. But no laws have been broken.
For every one instance - like this one - where there is no clear proof of illegal drug activity, there are probably 1000 instances where they confiscated both the money and the dope.
So over all.... No. I have no problem with this.
Do you have money in your wallet right now? Would you like the police to confiscate it? Do you think you have a right to carry money? If not, then why not?
You can solve the problem by requiring all money to go to the State general fund instead of the individual departments if it violates a law
_______________________________________
Or.... better yet...... you can follow the intent of this pro-drug article and just legalize and tax the drugs.
That way we have no forfeiture problems and everyone goes home happy and stoned.
This is basically brigandry and highway robbery.
No comparison between money and drugs. One is legal the other is not.
_____________________________________
Not exactly. There is not a court in this land that will argue that drug money is legal. And if the money is from drug profits, then case closed...
It is illegal and subject to forfeiture.
There was no "drug bust", and yet you aren't "sure if it was abused in this instance"?
Perhaps you need to reread the account?
But that's the point...there's been no trial and there's nothing to suggest that there'll *be* one.One of these days you'll be walking down the street,minding your own business when a cop stops you and seizes your $17K Rolex watch.Then your attitude might change.
NBC’s 20/20 actually had a good treatment of this a few years ago. They concentrated on I-10 from Florida to New Orleans, apparently a drug route. People with no possible connection to drugs are having their cars confiscated more or less routinely, especially people in late model cars with out of state registration.
Stone Philips did a test driving in the right lane at 65 MPH with cruise control along I-10 in Louisiana for some distance. His driving was documented by four video cameras. He was driving a late model car (LTD, I think) with New York tags. Pretty quickly he was stopped by a police officer who told him he was stopped because he was changing lanes and speeds. When Philips politely, but firmly insisted that he had not been doing either the copper back off. I hate to think what would have happened if he tried that jive on my wife or daughter. They wudda gone ballistic.
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.