Asset Forfeiture Laws

[Berzerker]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article201796909.html

Two guys head for Vegas with a bunch of cash...and ~11 grams of pot. Thats less than a 1/2 ounce of pot. Cop pulls them over for license plate infraction and starts asking questions, like where you headed? Cop decides they're transporting drugs because they're going to Vegas (huh?) and extends the search long enough to have a dope dog sniff the vehicle which proceeded to 'indicate' the presence of drugs. Can we prosecute dogs that falsely accuse motorists?

I have several problems with this attempted highway robbery... Are motorists obliged to engage the police in a discussion? I mean, the cop asks where you're going are you supposed to answer or can you tell him to mind his own business?

The cop is fishing for an excuse to 'investigate' without probable cause by asking questions, and if we 'volunteer' answers the courts say thats okay. But if you dont answer questions, the cops use that lack of cooperation to investigate further - catch 22.

Does this mean motorists heading to or thru any state with some form of legal pot are now 'suspects'? And since when did 11 grams of pot justify seizing large amounts of cash and vehicles? I thought these laws were designed to go after the assets of 'drug kingpins'. Silly me, that was just another lie told to us by politicians.

Anyway, the court ruled the thieves - I mean cops - cant keep the loot... The cop wasn't justified delaying the process to give the dog time to 'indicate' drugs. Is this cop keeping his job or does he now face an additional lawsuit for violating our rights? He should be fired, this is how cops get around the Constitution.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Houston detectives once threatened to "seize" my luggage after I consistently refused to give them permission search it. It doesn't just happen to people who carry lots of cash around.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I thought you wanted the Feds to crack down on Cross border pot and gun smuggling ????

 

[Berzerker]

These weren't the Feds and they weren't busted trafficking drugs or guns... I want an end to Prohibition, but short of that the states should be allowed to deal with drugs and guns as they see fit.

 

[FriendlyFire]

These weren't the Feds and they weren't busted trafficking drugs or guns... I want an end to Prohibition, but short of that the states should be allowed to deal with drugs and guns as they see fit.

Why would you have 11g of pot in the car if you werent running drugs across state lines ?
Iam pretty sure you can buy whatever illicit drugs & guns you want in Vegas anyways.

 

[stinkubus]

Uh 11 g isn't some huge quantity. We are talking about a street value of like $150 at most. It's overwhelmingly likely to be a personal stash.

You are never obliged to consent to a search, but the police are permitted to lie to you in an effort to obtain your consent. Asset forfeiture is about the most un-American thing ever, but like all law enforcement abuses the authorities choose their targets carefully to avoid pushback from broader society.

 

[Berzerker]

Why would you have 11g of pot in the car if you werent running drugs across state lines ?I am pretty sure you can buy whatever illicit drugs & guns you want in Vegas anyways.

They weren't pulled over at the border...the fact you can buy illicit drugs and guns doesn't mean cops have probable cause to search your car.

 

[Cutlass]

These laws need to be outlawed. It's about the worst thing to happen to law enforcement in decades. It just breeds corruption and bad behavior on the part of cops.

 

[Yeekim]

At a glance, the verdict seems to be less about Civil Forfeiture and more about 4th Amendment.
In any case, I find the ruling strange. Guess that is a sign of a very different legal tradition.

The two men were stopped for having a partially obstructed Ohio license plate. The judges reviewed the video and ruled Geary County Sheriff’s Sgt. Christopher Ricard had enough information to deal with that violation in the first four minutes of the stop and should have let the men go then.

Ricard testified he suspected the men were transporting drugs because they said they were going to Las Vegas.

So he asked his dispatcher to run a full criminal background check.

“About 7:25 into the video of the stop, (Geary County Sheriff’s Sgt. Christopher) Ricard conducted an exterior dog sniff of the truck with Scooby,” the court ruling said. “At the 8:54 mark, what did Scooby do? Scooby indicated the presence of drugs at the truck’s rear passenger-side corner of the tailgate area.”

The owner of the truck, Ryan Boyle, challenged the forfeiture as the result of an unconstitutional search.

The trial judge agreed and the appeals court upheld his ruling.

There was a cause to stop these guys. Once police has stopped someone, a criminal history check makes eminent sense to me for several reasons.
1) The person might be on a "wanted" list;
2) Past violent behaviour might warrant increased vigilance (unfortunate (mal)practice of shooting the poor bastard preemptively notwithstanding);
3) History of one's past violations or lack thereof should to be considered when deciding if and how much to fine someone for current violation.
So, a criminal history check is not a standard procedure? It certainly is here... Of course, it does not need a dispatcher either, it's just a finger-tap away.
The idea that sniffing a car from the outside constitutes a "violation of one's security" and an "unreasonable search" sounds very far-fetched to me.

 

[stinkubus]

Police dog are complete and utter bullfeathers. Dogs can be trained to given their "I smell drugs" signal whether they smell anything or not.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Police dog are complete and utter bullfeathers. Dogs can be trained to given their "I smell drugs" signal whether they smell anything or not.

It all depends on the Trainer and handlers.....

 

[Timsup2nothin]

3) History of one's past violations or lack thereof should to be considered when deciding if and how much to fine someone for current violation.
So, a criminal history check is not a standard procedure? It certainly is here... Of course, it does not need a dispatcher either, it's just a finger-tap away.
The idea that sniffing a car from the outside constitutes a "violation of one's security" and an "unreasonable search" sounds very far-fetched to me.

Does your cop on the street determine the fine? Ours don't. That's what courts are for. So, no, the cop doesn't need to access past violations, through a dispatcher or otherwise.

In this case, they saw an "obscured license plate." Having been pulled over for that once myself (by a cop who just wanted to pull me over) I can tell you that I no longer put a towing ball on the bumper of a truck, even though pick up truck bumpers might be designed for that and the tow ball doesn't really prevent anyone from getting the number off the license plate. This "obscured license plate" is an "incident crime" that was duly observed by a law enforcement officer, investigated, and charged. As the courts properly ruled that should have been the end of that.

Lessons:

When the cop walks up to your window and says "Do you know why I pulled you over?" the answer is "No, please tell me, and I'd appreciate it if you speak very clearly so I can record this conversation." Get them on the record as to exactly what they are investigating that has led them to detain you.

If at any time they ask you anything that does not seem directly related to the incident crime they claim to be investigating, immediately request to know how that relates to their investigation. This includes "where are you going?" "how's the weather where you live?" "do you like coffee or tea?" or any "idle chit chat." You aren't their friend, and they sure as hell aren't yours. They are delaying and fishing, period. Keep them on track, get your ticket, and get gone.

 

[Yeekim]

Does your cop on the street determine the fine? Ours don't. That's what courts are for. So, no, the cop doesn't need to access past violations, through a dispatcher or otherwise.

Even for minor infractions such as speeding or open seatbelt, etc?
I guess one lives and learns.
However, that seems ... incredibly inefficient, although I guess it lowers required training of cops.

Over here, stuff like this would only ever get to court if the citizen wished to protest the original decision for some reason.
EDIT:

If at any time they ask you anything that does not seem directly related to the incident crime they claim to be investigating, immediately request to know how that relates to their investigation. This includes "where are you going?" "how's the weather where you live?" "do you like coffee or tea?" or any "idle chit chat." You aren't their friend, and they sure as hell aren't yours. They are delaying and fishing, period. Keep them on track, get your ticket, and get gone.

I first wanted to say that this would be a useful approach only if you have something to hide. Then I realized that since your cop does not determine if and how much to fine you for your violation, you indeed have little reason to be cooperative. I'm not exactly sure whether this is good or bad from a broader society's perspective though.
EDIT EDIT:

Traffic tickets don't "get to court," but they are still processed by the court. Assuming the person charged has no quarrel it is all processed by mail or on-line. But there is certainly no determination of the amount fined, or collection of fines, by the cop on the street.

They don't collect them here either, but they do determine them, although within range established by law for the particular offense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even for minor infractions such as speeding or open seatbelt, etc?
I guess one lives and learns.
However, that seems ... incredibly inefficient, although I guess it lowers required training of cops.

Over here, stuff like this would only ever get to court if the citizen wished to protest the original decision for some reason.

Traffic tickets don't "get to court," but they are still processed by the court. Assuming the person charged has no quarrel it is all processed by mail or on-line. But there is certainly no determination of the amount fined, or collection of fines, by the cop on the street.

 

[stinkubus]

It all depends on the Trainer and handlers.....

There's really no way for the public to know. My understanding is the the dogs used can be trained to respond to very subtle cues.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's really no way for the public to know. My understanding is the the dogs used can be trained to respond to very subtle cues.

All dogs will respond to cues that humans, even trained handlers, are completely unaware of. The dog can tell "he wants me to find something," and they want to please their handler. So they find something. Since there is no penalty to the dog or the handler for a false positive, that's the bottom line. Notice in this case the dog alerted "at the passenger side tailgate area." Does that seem like a likely place for these dudes on their way to Vegas to have had their stash? This was a false positive that "turned out" and got rewarded when a little bit of pot was found in the cab of the pickup. That reinforces the false positive behavior.

 

[Berzerker]

If a cop says his dog signaled drugs I'd ask to see the dog do it myself. I figure the cop can just lie about the dog... I'd even record the dog. Course cops aint interested in complying with requests.

At a glance, the verdict seems to be less about Civil Forfeiture and more about 4th Amendment.

The judges decided based on the 4th Amendment - and that was the defendant's challenge, but the outrage is the forfeiture... At least for me. It seems the courts think its reasonable to grab our money without charging the owner with an offense. No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process. Now aint it interesting they do this with cash but not credit cards? The only lobby for cash is the owner, but if the cops were draining bank accounts by grabbing credit cards then corporations will get mad. Driving while young and male fits a criminal profile, these guys were easy targets.

There was a cause to stop these guys. Once police has stopped someone, a criminal history check makes eminent sense to me for several reasons.

1) The person might be on a "wanted" list;
2) Past violent behaviour might warrant increased vigilance (unfortunate (mal)practice of shooting the poor bastard preemptively notwithstanding);
3) History of one's past violations or lack thereof should to be considered when deciding if and how much to fine someone for current violation.
So, a criminal history check is not a standard procedure? It certainly is here... Of course, it does not need a dispatcher either, it's just a finger-tap away.
The idea that sniffing a car from the outside constitutes a "violation of one's security" and an "unreasonable search" sounds very far-fetched to me.

The cops used to just write the ticket at worst, with cases like this one they'd typically let the driver know the problem so they can fix it. Thats what honorable cops did and do, they didn't use an obscured plate for a fishing expedition, they'd tell the owner the plate wasn't visible. But things changed with the drug war and subsequent forfeiture laws. Now cops have more reasons to behave dishonorably.

 

[Commodore]

Police dog are complete and utter bullfeathers. Dogs can be trained to given their "I smell drugs" signal whether they smell anything or not.

If this is true, then why is it the resulting search always turns up drugs? Is this just the biggest series coincidences in human history?

These laws need to be outlawed. It's about the worst thing to happen to law enforcement in decades.

I think the "border exception" CBP uses to deny 4th Amendment rights is even worse. This exception states that CBP can conduct warrantless searches and seizures within a 100 mile radius around any land border, coastal border, or port of entry. That pretty much means the entire country falls under the "border exception" since international airports count as "ports of entry" and there aren't many people that don't live within 100 miles of an international airport in the US.

 

[Berzerker]

We dont hear about the cases when no drugs are found, that doesn't mean dogs are always right... It would be interesting to see how often they are right though.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If this is true, then why is it the resulting search always turns up drugs? Is this just the biggest series coincidences in human history?

Most training standards for drug dogs is pretty spotty and arbitrary IMO. Dog sniffing in general is more art than science, sometimes being incredibly accurate and other times being chance hit and miss. The truth is that human police are way better at targeting and profiling people who are likely to be carrying something illegal. They don't bother bringing in a K9 unless they are already suspicious, thus the high statistical "success" for dog searches.