Prove you own the money or we'll take it !
 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5081398.html
This man was not even crossing a border.
Evil governments !
New law : "guilty until proven innocent"
They hate people having cash, with cash you can go anywhere, buy anything and leave no trace for the new STASI
Soon it will be illegal to leave no trace

I'm sorry, but those are the laws. Governments are not evil because you say so. If he's got the ability to prove this is his cash, then it's his. They haven't denied him due process.

Saying that the New Mexico police are Stasi is incredibly insulting.

The government has the constitutional right AND responsibility to control interstate commerce. Obviously, you're unclear of the map of the United States, since he was stopped at a weigh station north of El Paso, which is actually a border town.

Why don't you try some discussion of the situation instead of just posting flame-bait?

Why should someone prove money ? It's a clear case of "guilty until proven innocent"

Probably in my country Romania it would be the same situation, I have seen news "they caught him with drugs and 100000 $" or "guns and 100000 $" but not just "100000 $"

I was not talking about the police, I was talking about some evil STASI like police which makes sure you and I are not "terrorists" and examines everything we buy, because they can. They are the ones who would like everybody to pay with a card
Yes maybe you say they really do a good job. In fact it's a different subject

You cannot produce a bill of sale for cash. The only way to prove the money is your would be bank statements or paycheck stubs, and neither of those are particularly solid.

I have gold in my house in a safe. If the police asked me to produce evidence that I owned all of it, I doubt I could. I have receipts for some of it, and could locate some of it in ATM history, but some of it is quite old.

It seems unreasonable to me to be asked to prove something on your person, in your vehicle, or in your home belongs to you, unless there is clear evidence indicating otherwise. It's not the DEA's jurisdiction even unless there is evidence of drugs.

I hope the ACLU rapes them.

I'm strongly opposed to such an action by the government. It being the law is no excuse in my opinion, as it's an unjust law that demands that you prove that your money was obtained innocently and legitimately or we'll confiscate it. In my opinon such a law is nothing less than Governmental Armed Robbery.

It's clear? Really? Well in that case, just give him the money back!

pai mei, what you are clearly unaware of is that these laws have been on the books for 10+ years in the US. You'll notice that ACLU isn't alleging those laws are unconstitutional but that the search that resulted in the seizure was done inappropriately. The government is saying that they asked for and received consent to search the truck. He didn't have to consent. Again, it doesn't appear like you really know what you're talking about.

We're not talking about Romania. We're talking about the US. Unless and until Romania starts operating under the US Constitution, Romanian law (or lack thereof) seems to be pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

pai mei, perhaps this is just a translation error, and I realize that English isn't your first language, but the above just doesn't make sense. You are talking about the police. Period. End of story. That's who did this. You compared them to the STASI. That's an unfair comparision, especially when the law says that the state can seize the money if it appears that it resulted from drug proceeds. Anyone walking around with $24,000 in cash should be able to prove where he got it from pretty easily, even if he doesn't trust banks.

No, it is the subject. You are being critical of the police. I am defending them. It is EXACTLY the subject.

I am getting more and more inclined to move this into Paranoia.

The same thing happened about 15 years ago down in Florida. Folks from North Carolina would travel to Florida to purchase construction materials because of rampant price gouging in the wake of Hurricane Hugo. People were stopped by Volusia County sheriffs (Daytona Beach area) and had their money seized after being accused of transporting drug money. It took a few years and a huge lawsuit for people to get their money back.

They fingerprinted him, took his cash, then released him without charging him with anything, but they kept the cash?

Fuck this government. It's time for a new one.

It was nice knowing all of you.

Hmmm, if the cash is his, then his fingerprints should be all over it. But I doubt any of his fingerprints will show up on the inner bills.

Also, they are probably examining some of the serial numbers to see where they have traveled recently and if any drug dealers are involved in springing him early from jail.

If he is using large amounts of cash legally, he could easily supply names of companies and customers and whatnot of transactions he has made in the past.

Whenever I fly internationally, the documents state that I can't take a certain amount of cash across the border. I think interstate travel is similar. The states in most of the USA are rather large and can almost compare to European countries in size, so that might be why state law resembles other countries laws.

Lastly, they could test the bills for drug contamination. Many drug labs get drugs on the bills if there is any wind but it depends on the drugs involved and how clean the people are. But yes, it is good that the ACLU is involved, just in case he is a legal citizen.

ROFL

I forgot to add, that if the trucker gets his money back, then he should get interest, even though he is stupid enough to think that his truck is as good as a bank.

I understand the point of seizing the money, but I am thinking it's a bit ridiculous. If he had drugs on him, a history of selling drugs, etc then it may be more understandable. I don't know how one would be able to prove that the money belongs to them. I can see how if I were in that situation I wouldn't be able to prove it. Some people don't like keeping their money in banks etc, and I've always been a secret fan of money in the mattress. I dunno, I think unless he has reason to be suspect of possessing drug money, he should have his money back.

Even if they were to find drug contamination on ANY of the bills what does that really prove? How much of the money that has drug contamination on it had said contamination put there in the hands of the last person who held it? How would we possibly know the answer to that? Money does change hands LOTS of time between the time that it's printed, and the time that it's ultimately destroyed.

Personally I don't support the government seizing ANY property from an individual without first having to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime, AND having to prove that each individual asset being seized was either used in the commission/furtherence of said crime, or was the proceeds of a crime. (for which the person the item being seized has been convicted) It puts the burden of proof where it should be, with the government, not the individual (especially since the individual has limited resources compared to the government's), and it should make it significantly more difficult for the government to seize assets.

need we do this?

the 4th amendment not only covers searches, but seizure as well. What cause did the government have to seize his property? The law states that the specific items to be seized must be noted in a warrant. I don't see in any way how the government has a case here.

Why do we allow this?

Ummmm excuse me, having to prove innocence IS unconstitutional.... having to prove the money is yours is having to prove innocence... and again THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yes they did deny him due process, how do you prove the money is yours? And where is the law that states you cannot carry your money with you? Especially as a truck driver. He may have just dropped a load off in El Paso, he may have been using that money to pick a load up that was COD. He has that right.

North of El Paso is the U.S., El Paso is in the U.S. so it is extremely possible to have never crossed the border. Obviously, you are unclear of the map of the area. Here's a map:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...0Paso&state=TX

Now, knowing the area, he could have been coming from East or West I10 had a drop off in El Paso and was taking N54 to I40, which many truckers in that area do.

So to imply, or for our government to imply he came from South of the border is ridiculous.

From an outsiders view, someone who was in a true Iron Curtain country (Romania) and had heard of our "great freedoms".... I could see how they could compare what the article said to the Stasi, I don't see it as a reach at all.

(This is just taking what we do know from the article. Since the article looks to be cut, there could be more information we are not given.... I base my input solely on what we have been given.)

I think he had a decent OP and one that could provoke intelligent conversation.

Personally, I think this statement is an over reaction.

No we do not need to do this.

The government does not have a case. (Again, based on only what we know from the case.)

"We" allow this because the government and powers that be have the average citizen more worried about paying their bills, Paris Hilton, Secondhand smoke, Trans Fat, the Boogeyman and whatever other distraction serves their purposes.

We can allow 1000's of illegals in daily but we "need" to stop a truck driver and take his money........ wow that is fucking unAmerican.

Then again, we do have a war to pay for.

They did not accuse him of anything but took his money, and he will lose them if he does not show proof. Is there a law : "guilty of having lots of cash, penalty : we take them" ?

I am critical of the NWO - and the new STASI I am talking about are all the "anti terror" agencies.I am not critical of the police, not every policeman can be involved, yes you could move it to paranoia, I am quite paranoid about these things.
These are 2 different things we are talking about, let's just remain at the right to carry cash, the other is about the power of the surveillance agencies to trace people because of their credit card

Yes, apparently there is. Welcome to the new Amerika, where the government rules by fear and the sheeple blindly follow along.

Haven't we been over this? This kind of garbage got Jews et al sent to concentration camps, as if simply stealing from its citizens is the worst evil government can do. Laws are not just because you say so.

I'm not sure I would say the New Mexico state police are Stasi but I would definitely say the DEA are.

Well I do know what I'm talking about, and I think PM has a point. Why should you have to prove cash is yours? How the hell are you supposed to do that? The government should have to prove it's NOT your cash before they get to seize it. And by the way you might not know this but it isn't like the government seizes this money and then makes a good faith effort to find the rightful owner.

If you set up a program where the government can just take your cash and then force you to prove that every dollar of it is yours, then you've set up a program that is rife for abuse. Need a new car for the office? Eh, swipe $20k and you're good to go. You're not supposed to have to prove you're not a criminal. Sure it looks suspicious to be running around with $24,000 in the back of your truck but looking suspicious isn't enough to justify stealing someone's money.


No, he's talking about the government that passed a law that allows the police to do this without themselves getting jailed for grand theft. There's a difference.

if it APPEARS? How do we define APPEARS? Appears can mean anything you want it to - -- it could have to have mountains of cocaine on it to appear to be drug money, or you could even say that a wrinkled bill appears to be drug money. The government is supposed to have EVIDENCE of wrongdoing before they seize property. And "Oh hey this guy has money, he must've gotten it illegally" does not constitute evidence, but wildassed speculation.

What rational justifications exist for seizure laws to allow confiscation without a conviction, or even without a charge?

Great for the budget, sure, so long as we're comfortable throwing out our ethics in the transaction.

Something about these entitlement laws scream of a stake and bonfire mob-mentality. Of a desire for retribution without care from whom it's exacted.

Or just a whole bunch of pissed-off citizens tired of criminals getting away with murder and hiding behind the Constitution. This all looks like the normal ebb and flow of democracy to me. The pendulum has swung more toward law enforcement these days and will one day swing back the other way. None of the swings of the pendulum have yet proved to be fatal to American Democracy - thus it has always been and thus it always shall be.

I can see both sides of this. I understand where I live that a shitload of drug money rides up the Interstate daily out of Florida to everywhere and if they catch you with gobs of cold hard cash they're going to sieze it. Hell, Grancey doesn't even allow me to leave the house with any bills in my wallet at all, so you can guaran-damn-tee I can account for any money I have on me if stopped. I think most reasonable folks expect that if you're travelling with large sums of cash that you can't account for then you're either up to something or you're just an asshole looking to prove a point.

On the other hand, we've certainly had plenty of investigative reports around here describing crooked counties that commit plain and simple robbery when they stop people - I think Volusia County in Florida is the worst.

Democracy in action. But then again, I'm Southern - I'm used to getting screwed by the US Government.

/me taking 2007 Non-Sequitur of the Year Award

I think we said the same thing. I called them a mob, you called them a whole bunch of pissed-off citizens.

Isn't that kind of justice a violent and self-defeating pendulum swing? (For those looking to right wrongs, and not just trying to feel good for a minute?) It certainly sets up great opportunities for abuse.

Aye, those certainly make headlines. They should. For myself, those cases of abuse of power and trust are a notch worse than the random thief. Abuse of public trust chicanery by police, politicians, or ? needs extra brimstone.

However I come at this I can't support a financial lynching. (the no due process part) It makes me curious if or how these things have passed constitutionality tests. It really seems like an oddity of law and politics from an ancient past.

I agree. I don't like the idea that some police person can take my money just because they think I am carrying more than I should and therefore must have obtained it illegally.

I guess if you cannot prove to their satisfaction how you got the money then they just keep it without charging you with anything. If they think you committed a crime then they should have to prove it before they can keep your money and not the other way around.

Yet another disgusting violation of civil rights initiated and supported by fascist anti-drug wackos. End the "war on drugs" and this kind of irresponsible and indefensible garbage along with it.

Chemical analysis can easily tell how long ago a bill was used to snort cocaine or if the bill was in the near proximity of drugs unless the drug room was clean, as I said earlier. Yes, pretty much all bills are contaminated in micrograms, but snorting would increase the microgram levels for sure. The first article talks about Euros and the 2nd talks about US money.

http://www.physorg.com/news87664001.html

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

Heroin; Methamphetamine but not codeine can be detected as well.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...dd1724dcf17169

This last article talks about a drug sniffing dog that was so good, it detected drugs directly on $9,000 in a briefcase. The sad thing was that the amounts were not high enough to persuade a judge to think that the drugs had made direct contact with the money, so the money was returned.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/p...cre_notes.html

The police constantly test clothing for cocaine and other drugs, why not test money as well ?

I suspect however, that the truck driver was suffering from lack of sleep and maybe was acting odd in some way so as to incur the search, or perhaps they randomly searched his truck, but the fact that he volunteered the money before it was found could be either quick thinking on his part or perhaps he is innocent. The sad part is the long backlog on CSI chemical testing and the trucker might not get his money back for awhile.

Anyway, I don't know anyone in the police field anymore, so perhaps times have changed and I'll conceed the point if it is no longer done.

Jonathan

Shrug. I understand the need for the law. Hard to say if its wrong or not. If you have 24k legit you should be able to prove where you got it easily.

anyone here have older relatives that do not trust banks- a lot of them would forfeit their cash under these terms too- I tend to think the gov should have to prove it is illegal money before they run off with it.....

I think The_Jazz seems to be personally offended by (and only by) the topic making police officers look bad or something. Which leads me to assume (I don't really know many people on this forum) that he's got some sort of real life role in a police related field.

In that case you're dealing with some sort of bias in which civillian rationale simply doesn't have a sharp enough edge to cut through.

look, it's simple, civillians are not all crooks, there are many truck drivers who worked to get thier CDL, are on the road a lot and aren't really all that trusting of banking institutions since they are always on the move. Having what equates to 2 YEARS of (my shoddy) income in your truck IS a bit out of the norm, but any reasonable cop knows that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed, and honestly, if you can't prove it, you've got no business touching that money, as much as you think you deserve it for being in law enforcement. Civillians don't owe you anything, you took the oath to protect and serve, not to harrass people who are slightly outside of your normal "profile"

you would be wrong here, due process does not include confiscation of property before guilt or innocence is proven unless the 4th and 5th amendments have finally been done away with.

Governments do not have rights. They have authorities granted to them by the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has a right. Also, the do not have the authority to 'control' interstate commerce, they have the authority to 'regulate' interstate commerce. Two totally seperate and distinct powers which have been greyed away by far left liberal courts and democrat politicians.

Not necessarily. Besides, why should you have to prove that your money is legitimate, why shouldn't the government have to prove that it's illegitimate. THATS THE PROBLEM. The government is putting the burden of proof on the individual and taking his money/property if he cannot prove his innocence, as well as the innocence of his assets. The burden of proof for seizure of assets should NOT be on the individual, it should be on the government. If the government cannot prove wrongdoing, than the government should not be allowed to take any action.

None of the information in these links prove, however, that the person who currently has the money committed any crime, or was party to a crime. I've read the abstract of the first link (I'm not paying for the full version) but nothing there says when the money changed hands from whomever committed the crime, to an innocent 3rd party. I've read the snopes link before, and I think it tends to support my position a bit more than yours.

Think about it for a second. If a person who did use said money in a crime, then spent it to buy something from an innocent person (and yes there are legitimate things that costs $20k or more , new cars, and some newer model used cars are examples) why should that money be seized from an innocent person? I could see seizing the purchase from the person involved in the drug crime but ONLY after he's been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt from the from the drug crime, AND that said asset is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been bought with drug money. Without such proof I oppose forfeiture.

I think that the right decision was made if the money was returned to him. The government didn't adequately prove that the money that they seized was the proceeds of a crime, or that it was used in the furtherance of a crime. If they don't prove that they shouldn't be allowed to take $0.01 of that money in my opinion. So I agree with the judge, as I'm strongly against taking people's assets without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of crime, and connection of said asset to the crime for which the person was convicted.

IOW, I think that that aspect of the RICO laws should be repealed or overturned because it allows for unreasonable seizure.

How often do your give your clothes change hands? Seriously, do you buy your clothes used as the norm? I'm betting that the vast majority of the money that you handle over the course of your lifetime, has been spent by someone else before it reached you. Most people buy their clothes new, but most money in the system has been in the possession, and used by someone else before it got to you. See the difference here between money and clothes in this situation? It's possible that you go to an ATM and get money for something and spend the money the same day, how often do you do that with your own clothes?

II think that the truck driver was stupid to voluntarily let the police search his vehicle. However his stupidity doesn't justify taking his money without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he's both a criminal, AND, that the money being seized was used in the commission of a crime, or was the proceeds from a crime. Taking it under any circumstance less that that level of proof is nothing more than armed robbery.

Exactly. When Hurricane Floyd hit NC in 1999, hubby was in the Marines, and after the hurricane helped local citizens with cleaning up and whatnot. He met an older lady who kept cash at home instead of putting it in the bank, and her house was flooded. Sad situation. Would it be cool to have taken her money too?

This whole thing stinks like last week's tuna casserole.

That's the sad thing though. I have never had to hide anything from the cops. Hell, I have always been the type that when pulled over by the time the cop got to the car I had my license, registration and insurance sticking out of my window and my car turned off. (Actually, that has saved me from a ticket or 2, the officer would just warn me and not do anything.)

I fear all this type of stuff will do is scare the innocent people. The criminals already know how to get away with things, so the innocent guy, who doesn't even know he's "breaking a law" will get raped by the system.

Pathetic to think in this country it is getting so we must fear our own government.

The headline of the OP article:

ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck whose money was seized

A very representative case of the ACLU..and all the more reason to support the ACLU if you are a conservative or libertarian who believes the government is infringing on your constitutional rights.

I'm against it. If we allow them to use the "prove its yours" where does it stop? Prove that Rolex your are wearing is yours, prove that hat on your head is yours, prove that home theater is yours, prove that plasma TV is yours, prove that ring is yours... Excuses for big brother to be big brother.

$10,000 today is not what $10,000 used to be. I am in the process of moving from one apartment to another in New York. When all is said and done I will have to write a check well over that amount just to move into a new apartment.

Which is, of course, my whole problem with this clusterfuck. Although I am a firm supporter of the whole "forfeiture of property used, and gained, in the commision of a felony" concept...burden of proof still needs to rest with the state.

If this is allowed to go unchecked, and unfettered, then we will pick up substantial speed down that slippery slope into oblivion.

Look...I'm not a moron. The odds are heavily on this guys cash being ill gotten. But, until the state can prove that, then the money is his. Sorry boys, this one got away. Better luck next time.

I only read the original post, but...

My friends were going to the Turning Stone casino, and the 3 of them were bringing $26K to play poker. They were interrogated at the border for about 5 hours and instructed to turn back, because they didn't have bank receipts for the cash. They were also told that from now on they will be searched every time they enter the United States.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law......coulda' sworn I heard that somewhere.

Yeah Tec, but it's that other 1/10th that's causing the problem here ;)