Another Asset Forfeiture Case

[Ben]

I can only go by what's in the story, but if true, this one looks pretty bad.

I would absolutely bet that the dogs sniffed drugs on the money (as is on ALL money), and this guy apparently even had bank receipts. The dialogue presented in the story between the officer and the victim makes me never want to ever talk to a cop if I'm pulled over for a traffic violation.

What makes this even more egregious is that the cop claims the guy was pulled over for "educational enforcement".

The victim apparently got the cash back, months later. No mention of how much it cost him to get it back.

https://idahonews.com/sports/local-sports/policing-for-profit-alleged-as-nv-troopers-seize-mans-life-savings-on-traffic-stop-nevada-veteran-reno-sparks

[Hawkmoon]

"Civil asset forfeiture" = theft under color of law.

[grampster]

Some of the things that some cops do these days makes me ashamed that I ever wore a badge.  I swore and oath and stuck to it.  These dirt bag cops we hear about are a disgrace and oath breakers.

[Northwoods]

A state governor or POTUS candidate that ran on eliminating civil asset forfeiture would do very well with voters.  Not so much with LE lobbyists, but that would be a strong, cross party winning stance.

[RoadKingLarry]

I doubt the average voter has clue one about civil asset forfeiture.

Of coures the average voter doesn't have clue one, so...

[cordex]

I doubt the average voter has clue one about civil asset forfeiture.

Agreed.  To be a winning issue you'd first have to educate people on what it is and why it is bad.  I think it would be hard to do that.

Add to that the fact that most people don't carry around enough cash to interest the cops and (right or wrong) you're going to get a lot of folks considering it to be an issue only important to wealthy people who carry around tens of thousands of dollars.

[HankB]

One of these days a bad cop is going to asset forfeit the wrong person . . . maybe a person with a terminal illness who has nothing left to lose, or maybe just someone who will hold a grudge and act on it through extra-legal means. And things will get bad for EVERYONE.

[RoadKingLarry]

One of these days a bad cop is going to asset forfeit the wrong person . . . maybe a person with a terminal illness who has nothing left to lose, or maybe just someone who will hold a grudge and act on it through extra-legal means. And things will get bad for EVERYONE.

I am kind of surprised we don't see more Marvin Heemeyer type events than we do.

[Big Hairy Bee]

Don't consent to a search. 

I wonder if the dogs would have hit the drug scent with the money in the car tucked away.

[Ben]

Don't consent to a search. 

I wonder if the dogs would have hit the drug scent with the money in the car tucked away.

That's a good question. I know nothing of how that works regarding dogs and "amount of scent" that would be on any money in a drug dealer's hands vs money in general circulation.

The fact that it is a well-known issue should really make drug residue on money inadmissible as evidence, IMO.

[cordex]

I asked my friend and he said his dog doesn't hit on all stacks of cash.  During stops he's had his dog walk away from some and hit on others.  He also doubts that a dog would hit on cash during a free air sniff, but cash work isn't something his training group focuses on.

[Ben]

I asked my friend and he said his dog doesn't hit on all stacks of cash.  During stops he's had his dog walk away from some and hit on others.  He also doubts that a dog would hit on cash during a free air sniff, but cash work isn't something his training group focuses on.

Thanks for checking!

[MechAg94]

Don't consent to a search, but you also don't have to answer the officer's 20 questions or small talk.  I get the impression that is what starts the issue with most of these people. 


IMO, just give vague answers if needed and remain relaxed.  There are a lot of youtube videos of traffic stops and a lot of those people get angry, agitated, and belligerent in speech if not physically.  They might be right, but I don't think it helps.

[MechAg94]

Have any of you seen videos or discussions on what attributes about a person trigger an officer to push further than just a simple traffic stop? 

Whatever it is about me, I have never had anything go beyond a basic traffic stop.  Not sure if it is the license to carry, my generic harmless white guy appearance, or something else.  I am never argumentative, but not real talkative either. 

[HankB]

Have any of you seen videos or discussions on what attributes about a person trigger an officer to push further than just a simple traffic stop? 

I've read that the presence of coffee cans may trigger an officer . . .

[Ben]

Have any of you seen videos or discussions on what attributes about a person trigger an officer to push further than just a simple traffic stop? 

Whatever it is about me, I have never had anything go beyond a basic traffic stop.  Not sure if it is the license to carry, my generic harmless white guy appearance, or something else.  I am never argumentative, but not real talkative either.

The guy in the OP appears to meet the generic clean cut harmless white guy appearance criteria, and from the article, was nothing but polite. It sounds like he may not have even committed a traffic violation.

In fact what's insidious to me about this one (if the article is accurate) is that the officer seemed to be putting on an appearance of Officer Friendly, shooting the breeze like he was the guy's buddy, all while setting him up for a non-crime.

[MikeB]

I've read that the presence of coffee cans may trigger an officer . . .

I remember that uh discussion…

I personally don’t think dog searches should be allowed without PC. Nor the trick “we are temporarily detaining you” so for our safety so now we get to search. Either there is PC or there isn’t.

[230RN]

I doubt the average voter has clue one about civil asset forfeiture.

Of coures the average voter doesn't have clue one, so...

I'll bet most people think it's a good idea to seize the assets of evildoers. 

What they don't realize or care about is that it presumes guilt in advance of any judicial review.

But to the unthinking "put it to the dirty bastards" mentality all that's OK.
 
Nevertheless, it's another case of "We know he's guilty, let's string him up now!"