What are the anti-gov. types feelings on the DEA?

[89Hen]

That's what's explained in the article and I think it's horseshit.

That may be, but that's the current law.

And we're back where we started.

[Chizzang]

He's going to need a lot more than one lawyer to get that money back...
It takes a team of those jack-asses to fight the other team of jack-asses - and I assure you the Feds will have a team of three piece suits on hand to bungle this thing up and lock it down

This dude needs to turn it into a no holds bared legalese free for all as well as make it as public a trial as possible

[ATrain]

There should be due process. He is innocent until the government is able to PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT BEFORE A JURY OF HIS PEERS that the money was acquired illegally. So far he hasn't even been charged.

And...LEGALIZE POT!!!!

[89Hen]

This dude needs to turn it into a no holds bared legalese free for all as well as make it as public a trial as possible

I'm not sure public sentiment would necessarily be in his favor.

[89Hen]

There should be due process. He is innocent until the government is able to PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT BEFORE A JURY OF HIS PEERS that the money was acquired illegally. So far he hasn't even been charged.

OK Perry Mason.

[Chizzang]

This dude needs to turn it into a no holds bared legalese free for all as well as make it as public a trial as possible

I'm not sure public sentiment would necessarily be in his favor.

agreed,
but it does bring to light that your home or all your money or your car or your business can be seized based on almost nothing but a suspicion - and - you don't even need to be charged with anything...

Freedom loving Americans everywhere would be shocked

[89Hen]

agreed,
but it does bring to light that your home or all your money or your car or your business can be seized based on almost nothing but a suspicion - and - you don't even need to be charged with anything...

Freedom loving Americans everywhere would be shocked

Not quite. AFAIK they are only able to seize money like this based on suspicion that is being used in drug trafficking. Somebody carrying $100,000 in cash is most definitely doing something illegal. If it were actually legit, it would be damn easy to prove.

[Skjellyfetti]

Not quite. AFAIK they are only able to seize money like this based on suspicion that is being used in drug trafficking. Somebody carrying $100,000 in cash is most definitely doing something illegal. If it were actually legit, it would be damn easy to prove.

Most definitely? People wrongly have cash "confiscated" way too often.

Roderick Daniels was traveling through East Texas in October 2007 when, he says, he was the victim of a highway robbery.

The Tennessee man says he was ordered to pull his car over and surrender his jewelry and $8,500 in cash that he had with him to buy a new car.

But Daniels couldn't go to the police to report the incident.

The men who stopped him were the police.

Daniels was stopped on U.S. Highway 59 outside Tenaha, near the Louisiana state line. Police said he was driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. They hauled him off to jail and threatened him with money-laundering charges -- but offered to release him if he signed papers forfeiting his property.

"I actually thought this was a joke," Daniels told CNN.

But he signed.

"To be honest, I was five, six hundred miles from home," he said. "I was petrified."

Now Daniels and other motorists who have been stopped by Tenaha police are part of a lawsuit seeking to end what plaintiff's lawyer David Guillory calls a systematic fleecing of drivers passing through the town of about 1,000.

"I believe it is a shakedown. I believe it's a piracy operation," Guillory said.

George Bowers, Tenaha's longtime mayor, says his police follow the law. And through her lawyers, Shelby County District Attorney Lynda Russell denied any impropriety.

Texas law allows police to confiscate drug money and other personal property they believe are used in the commission of a crime. If no charges are filed or the person is acquitted, the property has to be returned. But Guillory's lawsuit states that Tenaha and surrounding Shelby County don't bother to return much of what they confiscate.

Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away.

Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family.

"I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said.

The document Henderson signed, which bears Russell's signature, states that in exchange for forfeiting the cash, "no criminal charges shall be filed ... and our children shall not be turned over" to the state's child protective services agency.

Maryland resident Amanee Busbee said she also was threatened with losing custody of her child after being stopped in Tenaha with her fiancé and his business partner. They were headed to Houston with $50,000 to complete the purchase of a restaurant, she said.

"The police officer would say things to me like, 'Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,' " Busbee said.

Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper.

"They are disproportionately going after racial minorities," he said. "My take on the matter is that the police in Tenaha, Texas, were picking on and preying on people that were least likely to fight back."

Daniels told CNN that one of the officers who stopped him tried on some of his jewelry in front of him.

"They asked me, 'What you are doing with this ring on?' I said I had bought that ring. I paid good money for that ring," Daniels said. "He took the ring off my finger and put it on his finger and told me how did it look. He put on my jewelry."

Texas law states that the proceeds of any seizures can be used only for "official purposes" of district attorney offices and "for law-enforcement purposes" by police departments. According to public records obtained by CNN using open-records laws, an account funded by property forfeitures in Russell's office included $524 for a popcorn machine, $195 for candy for a poultry festival, and $400 for catering.

In addition, Russell donated money to the local chamber of commerce and a youth baseball league. A local Baptist church received two checks totaling $6,000.

And one check for $10,000 went to Barry Washington, a Tenaha police officer whose name has come up in several complaints by stopped motorists. The money was paid for "investigative costs," the records state.

Washington would not comment for this report but has denied all allegations in his answer to Guillory's lawsuit.

"This is under litigation. This is a lawsuit," he told CNN.

Russell refused requests for interviews at her office and at a fundraiser for a volunteer fire department in a nearby town, where she also sang. But in a written statement, her lawyers said she "has denied and continues to deny all substantive allegations set forth."

Russell "has used and continues to use prosecutorial discretion ... and is in compliance with Texas law, the Texas constitution, and the United States Constitution," the statement said.

Bowers, who has been Tenaha's mayor for 54 years, is also named in the lawsuit. But he said his employees "will follow the law."

"We try to hire the very best, best-trained, and we keep them up to date on the training," he said.

The attention paid to Tenaha has led to an effort by Texas lawmakers to tighten the state's forfeiture laws. A bill sponsored by state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, would bar authorities from using the kind of waivers Daniels, Henderson and Busbee were told to sign.

"To have law enforcement and the district attorney essentially be crooks, in my judgment, should infuriate and does infuriate everyone," Whitmire said. His bill has passed the Senate, where he is the longest-serving member, and is currently before the House of Representatives.

Busbee, Boatright and Henderson were able to reclaim their property after hiring lawyers. But Daniels is still out his $8,500.

"To this day, I don't understand why they took my belongings off me," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/tex ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

People wrongly have cash "confiscated" way too often.

[youtube][/youtube]

[CID1990]

Whe the other shoe drops in this case there's going to have been a lot of wasted air in this thread.

KY, why don't you just write your congressman?

[houndawg]

A crook got ripped off for 900 large by some other crooks.

[GSUhooligan]

I agree with Appaholic and Skjellyfetti. Just like with taxes and big government programs, once the government gets their grubby paws on a pile of money, they're never going to let it go.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

here's the thing - if they guy had even one document proving the gains weren't ill gotten, he might have stood a legal chance. most of us, law abiding citizen types - have some paper trail on our money - if not on our person, it can be obtained in the process of discovery. the fact that he has been unable to do so while not directly incriminating, certainly doesn't help his argument. even a dime store prosecutor would know to argue before any judge that you can't let the guy have his money back pending the result of a lengthy jury trial as the money would "disappear" in no time.

It's not a perfect system - civil forfeiture is thorny as all hell, but fighting the money is frequently more productive than wasting their time with street-level dealers.

(and yes, just legalize pot so we can bust serious and much more dangerous drug rings)

[Appaholic]

here's the thing - if they guy had even one document proving the gains weren't ill gotten, he might have stood a legal chance. most of us, law abiding citizen types - have some paper trail on our money - if not on our person, it can be obtained in the process of discovery. the fact that he has been unable to do so while not directly incriminating, certainly doesn't help his argument. even a dime store prosecutor would know to argue before any judge that you can't let the guy have his money back pending the result of a lengthy jury trial as the money would "disappear" in no time.

It's not a perfect system - civil forfeiture is thorny as all hell, but fighting the money is frequently more productive than wasting their time with street-level dealers.

(and yes, just legalize pot so we can bust serious and much more dangerous drug rings)

TTBF:

While I agree with you based upon pure logic, the fact is our justice system is not based upon logic. It's based upon the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, I don't feel it's incumbent upon the person in possession of legal tender to justify the possession in order to maintain possession. Instead, I feel it's incumbent upon the government to prove it's been obtained illegally before they are allowed to take possession.

[89Hen]

the fact is our justice system is not based upon logic. It's based upon the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

EXCEPT FOR CIVIL CASES. I really don't know why you keep trying to glaze over that point.

[Appaholic]

the fact is our justice system is not based upon logic. It's based upon the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

EXCEPT FOR CIVIL CASES. I really don't know why you keep trying to glaze over that point.

True...my bad....forgot a simple majority of his peers in the jury box agreed he shouldn't keep the money....

[89Hen]

EXCEPT FOR CIVIL CASES. I really don't know why you keep trying to glaze over that point.

True...my bad....forgot a simple majority of his peers in the jury box agreed he shouldn't keep the money....

You mention what the criminal system is based upon, not how it operates. This falls under civil system, which is not the same. Let me ask you this... can a judge order a search warrant without a jury?

[Skjellyfetti]

Let me ask you this... can a judge order a search warrant without a jury?

Did a judge order this money to be seized? Do the feds have to ask a judge issue a warrant to seize the money?

No.

[CID1990]

Let me ask you this... can a judge order a search warrant without a jury?

Did a judge order this money to be seized? Do the feds have to ask a judge issue a warrant to seize the money?

No.

YES.

The initial seizure doesn't require a judge but a judge has to rule in order to keep the money.

[Skjellyfetti]

Did a judge order this money to be seized? Do the feds have to ask a judge issue a warrant to seize the money?

No.

YES.

The initial seizure doesn't require a judge but a judge has to rule in order to keep the money.

In any sort of timeline? Judge hasn't ruled in this case and the money was seized 6 or 7 months ago.

[CID1990]

YES.

The initial seizure doesn't require a judge but a judge has to rule in order to keep the money.

In any sort of timeline? Judge hasn't ruled in this case and the money was seized 6 or 7 months ago.

Generally, a judge would have to rule initially on the appropriateness of the seizure almost immediately after the seizure. In our narcotics division, we generally had an answer from the judge as to whether the seizure was valid or not within a couple weeks. In fact, we used to not do seizures on less than about $350 dollars, because that was the court cost for having the ruling. If the seizure was less than $350 then we were paying the difference. Usually we found out if the seizure was good within a few weeks, maybe 2-3.

I promise you a judge has already signed off on this seizure, regardless of the what the article might say. That is why I say that there is certainly more to this case than meets the eye. The DEA is likely working a case with someone this guy is involved with.

[Chizzang]

Right, wrong or somewhere in between...
That dumb ass is NEVER going to see that money again
On that I think we can all agree

[houndawg]

Right, wrong or somewhere in between...
That dumb ass is NEVER going to see that money again
On that I think we can all agree

But the local PD will have some real nice tactical equipment.


Back in the day Louisiana got busted by 60 Minutes running the same sort of scam, stopping out of state plates on I-10 for no reason and seizing whatever they could.

[native]

Right, wrong or somewhere in between...
That dumb ass is NEVER going to see that money again
On that I think we can all agree

But the local PD will have some real nice tactical equipment.


Back in the day Louisiana got busted by 60 Minutes running the same sort of scam, stopping out of state plates on I-10 for no reason and seizing whatever they could.

Dateline.

http://www.ndsn.org/FEB97/LOUSIANA.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

How much cash can you have on your person, in your car, in your house and not have it seized under suspicion?

Does it make a difference if you're driving a pos, have worn out clothing on, are a minority?

I used to go out on patrol from time to time with a relative who was a cop. I'd shoot the radar gun at cars and watch late model car after late model car go buy at 11 over the speed limit and we wouldn't move. Then some poor schmuck in a beat up late 70's chrysler would go by at 3 over the speed limit with a license plate light out and it was time to ROLL!

That's where the drugs were.

So message to some of you drug smugglers - dress like a sunday school teacher and get some decent wheels. I know it's simple but you'd be amazed how many don't get it.

I think profiling equals good police work, but this case does raise some constituional issues.