Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families' Bail Money

[roo_ster]

Under Asset Forfeiture Law, Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families' Bail Money

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin-bail-confiscated_n_1522328.html

http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_05efeb0346e4/?department=3377616beeef&subdepartment=b7aec876f340

When the Brown County, Wis., Drug Task Force arrested her son Joel last February, Beverly Greer started piecing together his bail.

She used part of her disability payment and her tax return. Joel Greer's wife also chipped in, as did his brother and two sisters. On Feb. 29, a judge set Greer's bail at $7,500, and his mother called the Brown County jail to see where and how she could get him out. "The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

So Greer and her family visited a series of ATMs, and on March 1, she brought the money to the jail, thinking she'd be taking Joel Greer home. But she left without her money, or her son.

Instead jail officials called in the same Drug Task Force that arrested Greer. A drug-sniffing dog inspected the Greers' cash, and about a half-hour later, Beverly Greer said, a police officer told her the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics on the bills -- and that the police department would be confiscating the bail money.

"I told them the money had just come from the bank," Beverly Greer says. "We had just taken it out. If the money had drugs on it, then they should go seize all the money at the bank, too. I just don't understand how they could do that."

The Greers had been subjected to civil asset forfeiture, a policy that lets police confiscate money and property even if they can only loosely connect them to drug activity....

It took four months for Beverly Greer to get her family's money back...

But even in the odd world of asset forfeiture, the seizure of bail money because of a drug-dog alert raises other concerns. In addition to increasing skepticism over the use of drug-sniffing dogs, studies have consistently shown that most U.S. currency contains traces of cocaine. In a 1994 ruling, for example, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited studies showing that 75 percent of U.S. currency in Los Angeles included traces of narcotics. In 2009, researchers at the University of Massachusetts analyzed 234 bills collected from 18 cities, and found that 90 percent contained traces of cocaine...

I go the link from instapundit who mentioned tar & feathers.  I think tar & feathers is too gentle a punishment.

[Tallpine]

I think tar & feathers is too gentle a punishment.

I will refrain from saying what I think.    

[AJ Dual]

CoC prevents it. Yeah... Me too.

However, do know this is on the radar of some Libertarian/Right legal types I know. Not sure if anything "big" is to be done about it, or if pee-pee's will be whacked more privately.

Waiting to see what the results on that are.

[zxcvbob]

One word:  "Killdozer"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Brown County Drug Task Force Director Lt. Dave Poteat says the dog alerts were not the only factors. According to Poteat, the Greers and Zamora's girlfriend appeared nervous when they brought in the bail money. "Their stories didn't add up. Their ATM receipts had the wrong times on them. And they were withdrawing from several different locations. The times just didn't correspond to their stories."

Poteat says an additional reason Zamora's bail money was confiscated was because during calls from the jail to multiple people, he indicated the money was drug-related. "Mr. Zamora made a number of calls in which he appeared to be trying to disguise or hide where the money was coming from," Poteat says. "At one point, he even said to another party, 'of course the money is dirty.'"

According to Poteat, all inmate calls from the jail are recorded, and both the inmate and the party they call are warned before the call begins.

Zamora says he was merely telling his girlfriend where to get the bail money. "There's a guy who still owes me money from a car I sold to him. And where I'm from, everyone has a nickname. So I was telling her who she could go to that might be able to give her some money for my bail. I used nicknames because I didn't want the police to visit their houses."

Zamora says he was not attempting to disguise where the money was from, only telling his girlfriend and sister to find someone else to bring in the money so they wouldn't be interrogated. "I know how police do this. My sister just got her immigration papers. I didn't want them harassing her or threatening to deport her or to change her immigration status. I just wanted to protect them, so I told them to find someone else to bring in the money."


how many accts they hit to get 7500 in 2 days?

[Jamie B]

Oopsie......facts.......

[White Horseradish]

Oopsie......facts.......

Not really.

According to Poteat, the Greers and Zamora's girlfriend appeared nervous when they brought in the bail money.

While this may be a fact, how is being nervous while bringing $7500 cash to a prison to bail out a close relative proof of any damn thing? I'd be surprised if they weren't nervous. Of course, the cops would probably think lack of nervousness would be suspicious, too.

Their ATM receipts had the wrong times on them.

What would be the right times? Do you keep track of when you make your withdrawals? I don't.

And they were withdrawing from several different locations.

In other news, water is wet. I have never seen an ATM that would let you withdraw $7500. ATMs have limits and using several locations is the only way to get this kind of an amount from them. How is that suspicious?

"Mr. Zamora made a number of calls in which he appeared to be trying to disguise or hide where the money was coming from," Poteat says. "At one point, he even said to another party, 'of course the money is dirty.'"

Now, that might be an actual fact. Or not. Given how tenuous the other reasons are, what reason do I have to believe it?

[Perd Hapley]

Might we also ask for probable cause to investigate the cash? Is that what the phone conversations are supposed to be?

[Tallpine]

"Their stories didn't add up. Their ATM receipts had the wrong times on them. And they were withdrawing from several different locations. The times just didn't correspond to their stories."

Why does there have to be any "story" on the money at all 

[De Selby]

It's becoming a way to impose criminal sanctions without proving anything to a criminal standard - this is the norm with our government.  "Trust us - we wouldn't be hurting people for reasons you despise."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ATMs have limits and using several locations is the only way to get this kind of an amount from them. How is that suspicious?

because you can't hit the same acct for more than limit in the same day, no matter how many atms you hit


these folks set themselves up. the jail phone calls sink their ship.    stupid is supposed to hurt

[JonnyB]

Bunch of a-hole cops. What makes them thnik that they have any authority at all to 'investigate' the source of the cash? I'd go to hell before the bastages saw any ATM receipts I have. Eff them all!

jb

[MechAg94]

ATMs have limits and using several locations is the only way to get this kind of an amount from them. How is that suspicious?

because you can't hit the same acct for more than limit in the same day, no matter how many atms you hit


these folks set themselves up. the jail phone calls sink their ship.    stupid is supposed to hurt

Why do you assume it ALL came from ATM's?  

I want to hear some recorded interrogation of the family and how they were questioned.  I think those cops can create whatever suspicion they want in how they ask the questions.  If cops are bullying and accusing in their questions, anyone would be nervous.  Honestly, just the idea that they got the 3rd degree when trying to post bail bothers me.  I think they were looking for an excuse to not let this guy go.  (The guy probably is dirty for all I know, but it still comes off as a sucky thing to do.)

My only experience that applies is once I had a tow truck driver call the cops claiming I was driving recklessly (I wasn't).  The cop pulled me over and talked to me.  While I was waiting, I was going over in my head what happened and how the hell the guy thought I was driving recklessly.  The cop then made a comment that I appeared out of it.  I immediately asked him why the hell he would think that?  Anyway, nothing came of it, but I can just imagine that cop trying to claim he was suspicious I was drunk or on drugs or something.  Other than stomach complaints because I was late getting lunch, that would be a negative if you must ask.

It may be just the articles we discuss, but I seem to see way too many probable cause comments that are far too nebulous and manufactured for me to trust them without more to back it up.  

[RevDisk]

Basically civil forteiture is the police strongly think some property is obtained through illegal means and they have probable cause, and they arrest the property. The owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. In other words, the police can arrest any suspicious property as long as the folks don't have a clear audit trail.

Fun part is, you have to prove you have standing in order to even sue to get it back. The charges are against the property, not you. You're just a third party. You have to prove you have grounds to sue and "It's my stuff!" is not necessarily sufficient grounds. Then you try to prove your innocence.

[HankB]

Somewhere, sometime, a bad guy is going to learn that when he engages in an armed robbery, his badge and uniform will not guarantee his continued well being.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i want to hear the taped calls where the poor baby described the money as dirty    god hes a moron and apparently its a family tradition

[AJ Dual]

The cop then made a comment that I appeared out of it.  I immediately asked him why the hell he would think that?  Anyway, nothing came of it, but I can just imagine that cop trying to claim he was suspicious I was drunk or on drugs or something.  Other than stomach complaints because I was late getting lunch, that would be a negative if you must ask.

Or it's the "You seem to have glassy eyes..."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? if my eyes aren't WET and GLASSY, I'm probably in a lot of discomfort.  Your eyes look wet and GLASSY too officer, are you on duty while intoxicated? Do we need a supervisor to sort this all out?

I keep hammering on the concept of "institutional evil" or evil as an emergent property of a system, organization, or group, comprised of normal people, who are all "just doing their jobs". The pathology of it is that the police usually are dealing with guilty people, and low-life types who are evasive, unreliable, and erratic even when they aren't the suspect. While at the same time, these types are often just plain dumb, and fall for these tricks. Which makes them all SOP for law enforcement, and they wind up getting used reflexively on good people who actually are innocent and just victims of circumstance.

And then you have the understandable outrage of someone with nothing to hide, and no criminal intent getting this kind of treatment, and it turns into a case of "Disrespect of Cop -2nd degree".

i want to hear the taped calls where the poor baby described the money as dirty    god hes a moron and apparently its a family tradition

Irrelevant, a court already sided with the family. And four months isn't all that long as these things go. Either the facts supported the family rather strongly, or the .gov wasn't that interested in fighting it after all.

[RevDisk]

i want to hear the taped calls where the poor baby described the money as dirty    god hes a moron and apparently its a family tradition

Even if the guy is guilty as sin, the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutor to prove him guilty in a court of law. Legalized theft is not the answer.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

isn't that what happened?  they got their day in court? and their cash back?


its always puzzled me why folks are so hell bent on getting folks outa jail who are likely gonna just go back after trial.   money is better spent on quality landsharking

[brimic]

asically civil forteiture is the police strongly think some property is obtained through illegal means and they have probable cause, and they arrest the property. The owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. In other words, the police can arrest any suspicious property as long as the folks don't have a clear audit trail.

Fun part is, you have to prove you have standing in order to even sue to get it back. The charges are against the property, not you. You're just a third party. You have to prove you have grounds to sue and "It's my stuff!" is not necessarily sufficient grounds. Then you try to prove your innocence.

A friend of mine told me the same thing in regards to person he knew that had some firearms confiscated a few miles down the road from me.
Apparantly the man (He was in his early 20s) was pulled over under some manufactured suspicion because he was driving an expensive Luxury car (The man was part of a lucrative and completely above board family business). Car was searched, handguns which were legally being transported in the trunk were 'arrested.' I can't remember if he ever got him back or not, but the cost of the legal battle would have been or was many times greater than the value of the firearms confiscated.

[roo_ster]

ATMs have limits and using several locations is the only way to get this kind of an amount from them. How is that suspicious?

because you can't hit the same acct for more than limit in the same day, no matter how many atms you hit


these folks set themselves up. the jail phone calls sink their ship.    stupid is supposed to hurt

Err, wrong.  Depends on your particular bank's policy. 

Up until ~JAN2012, my bank's policy was something like, "No more than ~$500 per ATM per day, no limit until you drain your account."  So, when I needed a couple of grand quick one weekend for a possible used truck purchase, I hit all my bank's ATMs and then a local bank with no-fee ATMs until I had the sum I desired.

Somewhere, sometime, a bad guy is going to learn that when he engages in an armed robbery, his badge and uniform will not guarantee his continued well being.

Ayup.

I keep hammering on the concept of "institutional evil" or evil as an emergent property of a system, organization, or group, comprised of normal people, who are all "just doing their jobs".

Would only if someone had taken your arendt thought and run with it at book length...

isn't that what happened?  they got their day in court? and their cash back?

Armed robbery, even only for a little while, is still armed robbery, and wrong.  Some folks never learned that from their mothers and they ought to be slapped (them and their mothers for not raising them right).

[MechAg94]

isn't that what happened?  they got their day in court? and their cash back?


its always puzzled me why folks are so hell bent on getting folks outa jail who are likely gonna just go back after trial.   money is better spent on quality landsharking

I agree on the 2nd part. 

On the first, people really shouldn't have to go to court for every little thing just because cops can make up suspicions.  We always used to hear about court backlog.  How much of that backlog is taken up by unnecessary crap like this that should never have happened in the first place. 

Honestly, if they had just let them bail the guy out, they probably could have picked him up on another crime within a couple months.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

because cops can make up suspicions

if they have taped phonecalls what are they making up?

[AmbulanceDriver]

Well, apparently the judge in this case didn't think the phonecalls were apparently all that damning....

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

did the judge hear them?  i'm curious to know more