Kenny Rogers knew what he was talking about

[Hawkmoon]

Remember the chorus from "The Gambler"?

You gotta know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

Some people don't seem to know when to fold 'em ...

http://www.newser.com/story/253971/elderly-christmas-pot-couple-arrested-again.html

Elderly couple arrested in December for transporting 60 pounds of marijuana. They said they didn't know it was illegal to transport it through Nebraska. I suppose we can assume they made it to Vermont for Christmas (probably without the 60 pounds of "Christmas presents"), because they were just busted again -- in Nebraska, on their way back to California, with $18,000 in suspected drug money in a duffle bag.

[BobR]

California couple Patrick and Barbara Jiron........ A drug dog detected traces of marijuana on the money and in a garbage bag found in the vehicle, the Lincoln Journal Star reports.

Coming from a state where the use and possession of recreational pot is "legal" could it be considered reasonable that some items in the car may harbor trace amounts of pot? Just wondering how this could play into the charges.

The Jirons were released after paying 10% of $2,500 bond each and signing a form stating that they don't claim the $18,000 as their own

I guess the Po-Po will be getting a little addition to their coffers this month. :(

To say I don't know the whole story is obvious and can only go with what I read in the reporting, but I am not happy with asset forfeiture laws in the least bit. It seems this is what they really wanted.

Their daughter, a Vermont resident who was driving the vehicle, was not arrested.

This leads me to believe the older couple fessed up, yet they still disavowed any claim to the cash? Maybe the cops were nice enough to point out if they gave up any claim to the money things might go a little smoother. A distrust of the Police, which is a fairly recent thing for me, is why these thoughts even come to mind. (Recent as in the last decade or two)

bob

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with you. "Asset forfeiture" is a euphemism for "theft under color of law."

[MechAg94]

I agree with you. "Asset forfeiture" is a euphemism for "theft under color of law."

Agreed.

[AJ Dual]

The pot doesn't bother me, despite my legalization position. "Play stupid games" and all that.

However, the asset forfeiture bothers me a lot, for all the various reasons.

[HankB]

Moving dope cross country carries risks. Duh.

But now money is illegal?

One day, the badged thieves will succeed in provoking someone who's patient, capable, and implacable . . . and the results won't be good for anyone involved.

[RocketMan]

I agree with you. "Asset forfeiture" is a euphemism for "theft under color of law."

It absolutely is.

[TommyGunn]

Moving dope cross country carries risks. Duh.

But now money is illegal?

One day, the badged thieves will succeed in provoking someone who's patient, capable, and implacable . . . and the results won't be good for anyone involved.

Unfortunatly,  people have been stopped and found to be LEGALLY TRANSPORTING (THEIR OWN)   money and had it confiscated under the theory it is "drug money,"  and getting it back involved all sorts of legal hurdles.
Rotten situation....yes....perhaps having a bank doing an electronic transfer might be better.
Or, perhaps,  just maybe doing something about our drug laws.....?

[Hawkmoon]

Or, perhaps,  just maybe doing something about our drug laws.....?

Or maybe just dusting off that musty, moldy old Constitution and re-reading the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Asset forfeiture" is an affront to the Constitution. There's no warrant, there's no due process, there's no opportunity for the accused to have a hearing, to be represented by counsel, or to put forth a defense. It's theft and blackmail: "Sign away your rights to your money/property, or we'll just lock you up and forget where we put the key."

Just ... no.

[MechAg94]

The Jirons were released after paying 10% of $2,500 bond each and signing a form stating that they don't claim the $18,000 as their own, the York News-Times reports. Their daughter, a Vermont resident who was driving the vehicle, was not arrested.

Not only was there asset forfeiture, but they had to sign a form basically giving up the money to get out of jail.  At least that is how this appears.

[Hawkmoon]

Not only was there asset forfeiture, but they had to sign a form basically giving up the money to get out of jail.  At least that is how this appears.

That's how I read it. Which is why I likened it to blackmail. No trial, no due process ... just "sign here and you can go -- without your our money."

[TommyGunn]

Or maybe just dusting off that musty, moldy old Constitution and re-reading the 4th Amendment.

"Asset forfeiture" is an affront to the Constitution. There's no warrant, there's no due process, there's no opportunity for the accused to have a hearing, to be represented by counsel, or to put forth a defense. It's theft and blackmail: "Sign away your rights to your money/property, or we'll just lock you up and forget where we put the key."

Just ... no.

Asset forfeiture is an affront,  but I don't think one can argue that seizing money necessarily violates the 4th amendment.   That depends upon the circumstances surrounding how the  money was discovered,  and that may or may not violate the 4th,  on a case-by-case basis.

[Boomhauer]

Google "Desert Snow"...private citizens driving marked cars wearing police uniforms conducting asset forfeiture with the blessing of local government

[Hawkmoon]

Asset forfeiture is an affront,  but I don't think one can argue that seizing money necessarily violates the 4th amendment.   That depends upon the circumstances surrounding how the  money was discovered,  and that may or may not violate the 4th,  on a case-by-case basis.

Well, there's seizure, and then there's seizure. If they gave consent to search the car, then the search was legal. If the search turned up suspected contraband, the police are authorized to take it in custody and hold it as evidence. But in asset forfeiture the cops don't hold the property as evidence -- they take it. The appropriate it for their own possession and use. That's not seizure within what I understand the parameters of the 4th Amendment to be -- that's theft.