Welcome to the police state my friends.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/
but they were called "conspiracy theorists"The law itself is the problem. It's misapplication is an unfortunate result. There were those who warned this would happen way back when...
A close friend of mine says this is a result of the "get tough on crime" attitude in some states (Virginia included). Local jurisdictions make a great deal of money by confiscating personal property used "in breaking the law." If you get busted selling a dime bag of marijuana out of your car, the county gets to keep your car (and auction it off and pocket the money or use it for undercover ops).The law itself is the problem. It's misapplication is an unfortunate result. There were those who warned this would happen way back when...
Even if you have a large sum of money on you and no drugs, under many drug laws, that cash can be seized under "suspicion" of using that to buy drugs. It happened to a Vietnamese family traveling through Louisiana on their way to Alabama to buy a shrimping boat.A close friend of mine says this is a result of the "get tough on crime" attitude in some states (Virginia included). Local jurisdictions make a great deal of money by confiscating personal property used "in breaking the law." If you get busted selling a dime bag of marijuana out of your car, the county gets to keep your car (and auction it off and pocket the money or use it for undercover ops).
The Pennsylvania law seems particularly egregious.
I think this particular incident was Tennessee, but I may be thinking about a different case. Anyway, Tennessee is notorious for this - seizing cash on the premise that no one carries large sums of cash unless they're up to no good. More often than not, it's an expensive and long battle to get the money returned - more expensive than just letting them keep it. It's legalized extortion.Even if you have a large sum of money on you and no drugs, under many drug laws, that cash can be seized under "suspicion" of using that to buy drugs. It happened to a Vietnamese family traveling through Louisiana on their way to Alabama to buy a shrimping boat.
It's interesting that the DA's office doesn't view the parents as law-abiding citizens who are negatively affected by drug dealers and those associated with them. If the DA's office did, then it might do more to protect the rights of the parents as well."In these efforts we will follow applicable law to protect the rights of those involved -- not only drug dealers and those associated with them -- but the law-abiding citizens who are negatively affected by them."
This potential for abuse is compounded by the strong financial incentive that law enforcement has to make seizures--since they benefit directly from forfeited property. It was the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, part of the Reagan-era ramp-up in the war on drugs, that first made this possible. At a federal level, the law established two new forfeiture funds: one at the U.S. Department of Justice, which gets revenue from forfeitures done by agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and another now run by the U.S. Treasury, which gets revenue from agencies like Customs and the Coast Guard. These funds could now be used for forfeiture-related expenses, payments to informants, prison building, equipment purchase, and other general law enforcement purposes.
But equally important, local law enforcement would now get a piece of the pie. Within the 1984 Act was a provision for so-called "equitable sharing", which allows local law enforcement agencies to receive a portion of the net proceeds of forfeitures they help make under federal law--and under current policy, that can be up to 80%. Previously, seized assets had been handed over to the federal government in their entirety.
Immediately following passage of the Act, federal forfeitures increased dramatically. The amount of revenue deposited into the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, for example, soared from $27 million in 1985 to $644 million in 1991--a more than twenty-fold increase. And as forfeitures increased, so did the amount of money flowing back to state and local law enforcement through equitable sharing.
Here's an incident in TN that happened to an insurance adjuster from New Jersey.I think this particular incident was Tennessee, but I may be thinking about a different case. Anyway, Tennessee is notorious for this - seizing cash on the premise that no one carries large sums of cash unless they're up to no good. More often than not, it's an expensive and long battle to get the money returned - more expensive than just letting them keep it. It's legalized extortion.
This practice is just unbelievable and that officer is dumber than a bag of hammers (and a liar). The most outrageous part of the law is explained in that video:Here's an incident in TN that happened to an insurance adjuster from New Jersey.
Would you trust this guy to search your car? I'm not sure he made it out of high school.
That's why I have no trust for cops either.This practice is just unbelievable and that officer is dumber than a bag of hammers (and a liar). The most outrageous part of the law is explained in that video:
“While police are required to get a judge to sign off on the 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 Rebee was never told there was a hearing on his case.”
Even if you know about the hearing, which they have no obligation or incentive to tell you about, you can’t produce any evidence that the money was from a legitimate source. As the ex-Texas prosecutor explains, “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.'”
when our legal system protects injustice, it is upon the citizen to take justice into his own hands. I do believe a $22k injustice would result in a massive amount of pain for the thief.Without any real evidence of wrong-doing, this is legalized theft.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]