# Texas police shake down drivers, lawsuit claims



## Bob Hubbard (May 6, 2009)

* Texas police shake down drivers, lawsuit claims*



Story Highlights
 Police stop drivers, take their money and jewelry, alleged victims say
 Drivers threatened with arrest, loss of children if they don't pay up, plaintiffs say
 Most targeted drivers are minorities who won't fight back, lawyer says
 Town, county officials deny any wrongdoing, say officers follow the law

*TENAHA, Texas (CNN)* -- 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.


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2009)

Good time for an FBI sting operation.


----------



## MJS (May 6, 2009)

This reminds me of the movies, where you see a small, hick town, with a sheriff, who is the judge, jury, town manager, etc.  LOL.  First off, the thought of getting pulled over for driving 2mph over the speed limit.....please...the cops in this town must be losers.  If that happened anywhere else, they'd be writing tickets all day long.

As for this incident....thats pretty messed up, and an investigation needs to take place.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> This reminds me of the movies, where you see a small, hick town, with a sheriff, who is the judge, jury, town manager, etc.



Yeah, why do my thoughts immediately turn to Roscoe and Boss Hogg?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 6, 2009)

Yep.  Texas.  Color me not surprised.  I hate that state.


----------



## celtic_crippler (May 6, 2009)

Didn't I see this in a Chuck Norris movie?...._Breaker, Breaker_... wasn't that it? LOL

My first question was, "Where the hell is the FBI?" 

If this story is proved to be true then it is inexcusable and the Fed needs to drop the hammer on these guys and lock them up for a long - long time.


----------



## seasoned (May 6, 2009)

The hoops you have to jump through, and the time it takes to become a LEO, makes me sick to hear something like this. LEO risk their life's everyday for the betterment of humanity, and the few that try to buck the system, make it look bad for all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 6, 2009)

Anyone know the scoop on the town?


----------



## terryl965 (May 6, 2009)

Yea it has been several complaints butno arrest there have never been any eye witness or for that matter any sherd of evidence to support these alligations. I wish if it wa shappening somebody would proof this andget them off the force, it is bad for all Leos when this happens.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

Tenaha is like 15 minutes from me, very small town, less than 1000 people, less than 10 cops and this story is ********.

Teneha sits on 259, THE major drug route up from mexico. Oddly, travelers from the south to the north end of the state DONT use 259, it is mostly small 2 lanes, lots of speed zones, etc. So most people dont use it. But the drug runners all do.

listen to the details

"they took my 6000 in cash i was carrying"

who the hell carries 6K in CASH???


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

our feelings wont be hurt if you dont visit



Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep.  Texas.  Color me not surprised.  I hate that state.


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

As a cop I have to say that the $6000 "to buy a car" (If I had a nickle every time Ive heard that one) would set my spidey senses tingeling...minus any sort of evidence or articulable suspicion I dont see me confiscating it..and I have never confiscated jewelry. Not that that is wrong per se..Ive just never had a situation where I could prove that it was purchased with illegal proceeds. If this is shown to be a systematic shakedown of motorists, the feds need to get involved. If its one person who managed to get a media story out if it then Id be interested in seeing some more facts.

As to the "they make all cops look bad" thing...Ive always taken issue with that blanket statement. I do agree that if this is PROVEN to be corruption, that it dishonors all that LE agencies stand for. But the actions of some LEO's in some podunk Texas town has nothing at all to do with how my department functions or how we look at our profession.

I look at it much like how when some pedophile martial arts intsructor gets arrested. Does it cast "Isshin Ryu", Shotokan" ,"Arnis" or any other style "In a bad light?"

What these situations in LE do is allow people who have a beef with law enforcement to reinforce their position by assuming that if those guys are doing this than they can assume that all cops are doing it...which is unfair and prejudicial.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

from Bob's link:*


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.

*Now, who the hell carries 50K IN CASH?

thats right boys and girls DRUG RUNNERS


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

oh, everyone has seen the famous video of the highway patrol officer that got killed after stopping a car and the bad guys jump him?

that happened just north on my town, between here and Tenaha. On 259.


----------



## terryl965 (May 6, 2009)

Like I said it has not been any arrest or anything so it figures to be ******** but who knows.


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

I have to wonder..did they have a dog sniff the cash? Where was the cash found? Was there any other evidence/criminal history/statements present that influenced the decision to seize? You can have a situation where you have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, but not probable cause to make an arrest. We don't have to let evidence drive away just because we dont have PC...we do have to be able to articulate why holding property as evidence was reasonable however and it can open you up a bit to civil suits. News stories are notorious in their lack of the finer details..I have experienced that myself. To cook up some controversy, the media conveniently leaves out details that would make the police actions seem more reasonable.

But I have no proof that that is going on here...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

i dont believe that Tenaha has a canine unit, the town is too small to have one.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

So Twin Fist, are you now saying that the act of carrying the only legal tender recognized by the government is _alone_ enough to confiscate that currency on suspicion of a crime?


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So Twin Fist, are you now saying that the act of carrying the only legal tender recognized by the government is _alone_ enough to confiscate that currency on suspicion of a crime?
> 
> 
> -Rob



My "professional opinion"...6K in your pocket minus my being able to dig up some evidence of criminal activity (PC for arrest not withstanding) or articulable reasonable suspicion..you will probably drive away. 

25K shrink wrapped and stuffed in the spare tire ( to buy that restaurant..right )...probably not so likely.


----------



## Carol (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So Twin Fist, are you now saying that the act of carrying the only legal tender recognized by the government is _alone_ enough to confiscate that currency on suspicion of a crime?
> 
> 
> -Rob



Absolutely.   Try depositing that much cash in to a bank account and one can see the hoops one has to go through, for a legal deposit, of legal tender, on behalf of an established, reputable business.

Sorry...not buying in to the "corrupt cop" story that CNN desperately wants me to believe.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

again with the theory vs reality thing

yeah, in theory you can walk around with your life savings in cash

here on planet reality, no one does that. No one deals in large sums of cash anymore.

And if you are, you are stupid for doing so since the risk of loss, etc whatever

But we do know WHO deals in cash and nothing but cash

druggies

Well, banks know that too. Carol is right, try to walk into a bank with more than 10K in cash, see what happens.


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

I'll be open minded enough to think that its possible that there is a shake down going on...but without proof Its just as likely that there isnt. 

That CNN story isnt enough to make me jump in either direction.


----------



## Carol (May 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> a
> 
> Well, banks know that too. Carol is right, try to walk into a bank with mroe than 10K in cash, see what happens.



5K in cash, actually.  Got lowered to 5K from 10K after 9/11 (at least up here).


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2009)

It's a bit of a tangent to the topic but the flip-side is also true - try drawing out a lot of cash from a bank and see what happens.  Not all that many years ago, I tried to draw a few thousand from my account for the private purchase of a car - the bank wouldn't give me my 'own' money!


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

well, quick survey

Who here has more than 1000 in cash on thier persons, or even in thier home for that matter?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2009)

Not me !


----------



## blindsage (May 6, 2009)

I'm going to conjecture that we have both drug runners _and _corrupt cops here. Circumstantial evidence (i.e. large sums of cash on a known, major drug route) would indicate that at least some of these are drug runners, but the fact that the cops in the town are stopping them, confiscating the money and jewelry, threatening them, *not *charging them, and letting them go without the money/jewelry, etc. is a strong indicator that they are shaking down the drug runners for the money because they think they can get away with it. I don't feel any compassion for a drug runner who gets shaken down, but the cops have laws they are obliged to abide by regardless of who their dealing with. It also doesn't speak to the towns favor that people with $50K hired lawyers and got their money back.


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm going to conjecture that we have both drug runners _and _corrupt cops here.  Circumstantial evidence (i.e. large sums of cash on a known, major drug route) would indicate that at least some of these are drug runners, but the fact that the cops in the town are stopping them, confiscating the money and jewelry, threatening them, *not *charging them, and letting them go without the money/jewelry, etc. is a strong indicator that they are shaking down the drug runners for the money because they think they can get away with it.  I don't feel any compassion for a drug runner who gets shaken down, but the cops have laws they are obliged to abide by regardless of who their dealing with.  It also doesn't speak to the towns favor that one of the complaintants went to court and got their money back.



Yup..thats possible too. A number of vice cops are in federal pens for doing exactly that.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

Then the general position would seem to be that just carrying money is reason enough for the government to take it away from me.

Ok.


-Rob


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> "they took my 6000 in cash i was carrying"
> 
> who the hell carries 6K in CASH???


 
I carry nearly that much, from time to time. :shrug:


----------



## blindsage (May 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Then the general position would seem to be that just carrying money is reason enough for the government to take it away from me.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> ...


No. I think you got a couple of arguments stating that reality isn't as simple as saying "I have the freedom to carry legal tender". No one said the government can just take your money because you're carrying cash. The point is that if you're on a road in Texas with a high level of drug traffic from Mexico and you are carrying a large sum of cash, then they have probable cause to check you out. No one is saying the government is then free to take your money and your SOL even if you aren't a drug runner. That's not really even in the range of what people are saying.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I carry nearly that much, from time to time. :shrug:


 
Show off.


-Rob


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

That may be possible, I certainly dont buy the story as presented. 



blindsage said:


> I'm going to conjecture that we have both drug runners _and _corrupt cops here. Circumstantial evidence (i.e. large sums of cash on a known, major drug route) would indicate that at least some of these are drug runners, but the fact that the cops in the town are stopping them, confiscating the money and jewelry, threatening them, *not *charging them, and letting them go without the money/jewelry, etc. is a strong indicator that they are shaking down the drug runners for the money because they think they can get away with it. I don't feel any compassion for a drug runner who gets shaken down, but the cops have laws they are obliged to abide by regardless of who their dealing with. It also doesn't speak to the towns favor that people with $50K hired lawyers and got their money back.


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> who the hell carries 6K in CASH???





elder999 said:


> I carry nearly that much, from time to time. :shrug:



Hey, *elder999* is Gov. Eliot Spitzer!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 6, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Hey, *elder999* is Gov. Eliot Spitzer!!!


I dunno about that but he's (Elder) more popular in NY than Spitzers replacement is.  


Maybe the issue is that little town can't fathom anyone having cash today?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The point is that if you're on a road in Texas with a high level of drug traffic from Mexico and you are carrying a large sum of cash, then they have probable cause to check you out.



A) No, that's not probable cause.

B) How would the police know how much cash a person has on them unless they either had the motorist's permission or had a search warrant?  The only way is if they had PC to make an apprehension - and you can't do the search to get the PC to do the search.

C) If I ever carried that much cash on me, I'd certainly not advertise it here, or anywhere.

D) I think a lot of you folks have no idea how many people deal in strictly cash.  I went through a long period of time in which I had terrible credit.  I was on the 'national bad check registry' and could not even open a checking account, not even at a local credit union.  I cashed my paychecks and paid my bills with money orders I purchased at the grocery store.  The rest was in cash on me.  When I bought a used car, I paid cash for it, about $3,000.  There is an entire strata of citizens who live like I did then.  Some by choice and some because they have little choice.

E) In any case, cash is still legal.  Having a large amount of it on you without any other information is evidence of no crime.  It's PC of nothing.

I would *LOVE* to be pulled over, searched illegally, and have my cash confiscated from me because it 'proves I'm a drug dealer'.  Come get me - I want to own your house and rent out my big building where your broke-dick cop shop used to be.

PS - And yes, I feel free to steer clear of Texas.  I've had a bellyful of Texans ruining my former home of Colorado.  Not content with making a crap-hole of their own state, they come to the high country and shoot farmer's cows, thinking they're elk.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

where exactly are you a member of the bar?


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

I would actually have to agree with Bill on that point..carrying large sums of cash is not typically PC in and of itself. _You can carry as much cash as you wish _as long as you are not crossing borders or entering the country (then a $10K limit applies)...

However it is a common indicator of drug trafficking and will get some additional scrutiny from LEO's. I agree with Blindsages intent of his post though..some people are just unfamiliar with the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 6, 2009)

Updated



> *(CNN)* -- Authorities who seized $8,500 and assorted jewelry from a Tennessee man after a traffic stop in east Texas have agreed to return the property after his case drew attention from CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/06/texas.police.seizures/index.html


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2009)

oh, just another little tidbit

the lawyer that is suing Tenaha? turns out he is known as a "lawsuit lawyer" here in town. In fact, I know his partner in his practice. Another lawyer named Darren Burtan.

He is currently a county attourney as well as still operating his private practice, is a very politically active democrat. Couple of years ago, he sued the electric company down here for supposedly over charging customers. It was widely considered a nuisance suit.

His rep locally is that of a very liberal, but more or less honest lawyer. he LOVES civil rights cases, and doesnt trust the police. Ever.

Now, I am not fronting, the local cops are hardasses, and I am sure that tenaha is no different, but at best, this story is half true, half BS.

I do know that in Tenaha , you WILL get pulled over for ANYTHING you do wrong.


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2009)

And a department caving in to media scrutiny isnt proof of wrongdoing either..yall will just have to trust me on THAT one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> where exactly are you a member of the bar?



I am not a lawyer.  I do not give legal advice.  However, like many people, I have discovered that the law is freely available, as are court cases and SCOTUS judgments.  One can learn all that one is able, if one is interested.

Plus, my college education towards my AAS in Criminal Justice contained a lot of Constitutional Law classes.  For some reason, in Colorado, they want their cops to actually have some idea what the law is.  Or at least they did back in the 1980's.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I would actually have to agree with Bill on that point..carrying large sums of cash is not typically PC in and of itself. _You can carry as much cash as you wish _as long as you are not crossing borders or entering the country (then a $10K limit applies)...



Thanks for the agreement, but I would also have add that the 10K limit is not really a limit - it is the maximum you can bring in without declaring it.  If you declare it, you can bring in any amount, no maximum is specified.



> However it is a common indicator of drug trafficking and will get some additional scrutiny from LEO's. I agree with Blindsages intent of his post though..some people are just unfamiliar with the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.



I agree.  Carrying large sums of cash (or having cats strapped to your forehead, anything 'weird' really) is reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

My question would remain, however.  How would a police officer pulling over a motorist for speeding know that he or she had a large sum of cash on them unless they searched for it?  And searches are either voluntary, subsequent to lawful apprehension, or by warrant.  So I'd like to know how that came to pass.  How can the police detect how much dosh the guy has on him without searching?

Assuming I were pulled over by the police, if they asked if they could search my car, I'd say 'no'.  Unless they have PC at that time to arrest me or get a warrant, that's the end of it.  They can certainly have me exit the car and pat me down for weapons, but they can't go into my wallet, they can't search my locked trunk, etc, etc.  But let's assume they see a duffel bag sitting next to me on the car seat and it is open and they see money inside.  If the question is "What's that money for?"  The answer would be "I'm sorry, officer, that's none of your business."  Again, end of situation - or it should be.

I find it rather fascinating, however, that the people most in fear of Big Brother and what abuses he might be planning against our civil liberties are utterly convinced that the police have the right to do just about anything they want.


----------



## Archangel M (May 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My question would remain, however. How would a police officer pulling over a motorist for speeding know that he or she had a large sum of cash on them unless they searched for it? And searches are either voluntary, subsequent to lawful apprehension, or by warrant. So I'd like to know how that came to pass. How can the police detect how much dosh the guy has on him without searching?


 
Good question. 

I would have to say that to be legit it almost HAS to be a consent search or be laying out in plain view.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Yea it has been several complaints butno arrest there have never been any eye witness or for that matter any sherd of evidence to support these alligations. I wish if it wa shappening somebody would proof this andget them off the force, it is bad for all Leos when this happens.


 
Something tells me that this dept. would never have those cameras in the cars, like we see in some areas.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Tenaha is like 15 minutes from me, very small town, less than 1000 people, less than 10 cops and this story is ********.
> 
> Teneha sits on 259, THE major drug route up from mexico. Oddly, travelers from the south to the north end of the state DONT use 259, it is mostly small 2 lanes, lots of speed zones, etc. So most people dont use it. But the drug runners all do.
> 
> ...


 
Well, this explains a bit more.  I remember a phone call I took from a woman who lived in one of the high crime areas of the city where I work.  She wanted to file a larceny complaint.  So, she goes on to tell me that she gave 'some guy' $20 so he could buy her drugs.  He scammed her out of the cash, and now she wanted to report that.  Needless to say, the cop went there, and told her that the Police don't take complaints like that and he's not going to help her get her drug money back.  

As for who carries 6 grand.....sure as hell isn't me! LOL!


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So Twin Fist, are you now saying that the act of carrying the only legal tender recognized by the government is _alone_ enough to confiscate that currency on suspicion of a crime?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

In all honesty, I think it would raise the suspicions of anyone who came across someone with that kind of cash.  I would also say that if this PD is like most others, other things would be done to check out the people in the car.  Have the occupants of the car had past run ins with the police? If so, what were the details?  Do any of the occupants have prior drug convictions?  

I can only go by what I read initially, but now that we actually have members of the forum who a) live in TX, and b) know that area and about past incidents that've happened there, I think this story makes more sense.  Were the cops crooked?  Don't know, again, I can only go on what I've read so far.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Absolutely. Try depositing that much cash in to a bank account and one can see the hoops one has to go through, for a legal deposit, of legal tender, on behalf of an established, reputable business.
> 
> Sorry...not buying in to the "corrupt cop" story that CNN desperately wants me to believe.


 


Twin Fist said:


> again with the theory vs reality thing
> 
> yeah, in theory you can walk around with your life savings in cash
> 
> ...


 
I remember one day I was standing in line.  There was a guy at the counter and another in front of me.  The guy at the counter had one of those cash bags with the zipper on it.  He pulled out quite a bit of cash to deposit.  A few major differences:

1) The tellers all knew him.

2) He was the owner of a business in town.

3) He was depositing the cash into the business acct.

Good points that you both bring up!


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> well, quick survey
> 
> Who here has more than 1000 in cash on thier persons, or even in thier home for that matter?


 
Not me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> In all honesty, I think it would raise the suspicions of anyone who came across someone with that kind of cash.



Again, how do they know who has what kind of cash in a traffic stop?

That's the answer I'm looking for here.  You pull someone over, how do you know how much cash they have?  X-ray vision?

There is also the small problem of the 'civil forfeiture' not appearing to have anything to do with subsequent arrests or prosecutions.  You take someone's 'drug money', where are the drug charges?  Are we saying that the cops have the authority to cut deals with drug suspects, letting them go in exchange for their money?

Extortion applies EVEN when the police steal from bad guys - assuming these people were bad guys.

I'm not seeing much here that would tend to exonerate the police in this case.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thanks for the agreement, but I would also have add that the 10K limit is not really a limit - it is the maximum you can bring in without declaring it. If you declare it, you can bring in any amount, no maximum is specified.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Then again, how many LEO shows that we see on TV or incidents that we've seen in RL, where someone knows damn well that they have drugs in the car, yet they let the cops search anyways.  Happens all the time.  The badguys are hoping, that being the key word, that the cops dont find anything.  They're taking a gamble.   And now, once they have the OK from the driver, simply calling for a dog is another option.  Happens all the time where I work.  

Also keep in mind Bill, that you are speaking and thinking like a LEO.  You know the ins and outs, because IIRC, you mentioned that you are in that field or were at one point.  However, I'd be willing to bet that your typical dealer, carrier, etc., doesnt have the mental know-how, to think like that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Good question.
> 
> I would have to say that to be legit it almost HAS to be a consent search or be laying out in plain view.



So let's say it is a consent search.  Cops ask to search, nervous driver gives permission.  They find a bundle of cash.  Now, that's a good reason to ask questions of the driver - and to attempt to develop PC - but where is the drug-sniffing dog that alerts on the money?  Where are the drugs?  Where is the crime?  It looks very clearly as if the people involved are having their cash confiscated,  but no charges filed.  Since when do police do civil asset forfeiture without an arrest or charges being filed?  And then they're essentially saying they are trading charges for cash?  Letting bad guys go if they give up their money?  That sounds like extortion to me.

Even if the cash is found subsequent to a voluntary search, where is the PC for seizing it?


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, how do they know who has what kind of cash in a traffic stop?
> 
> That's the answer I'm looking for here. You pull someone over, how do you know how much cash they have? X-ray vision?
> 
> ...


 
Honestly Bill, I don't know, and frankly, nobody here does either, unless we were privy to being there at that given moment.  Its all speculation at this point.  We can what if this and come up with a million scenarios all day long.  Fact of the matter is, we only have the articles to go by, and details of the town and the PD from members who live in Texas.  

But, to answer your question.....they (the police) probably dont know, but as I said in another post, the average criminal is probably not playing with a full deck of cards.  How many careless ones are out there?  Ones that, as I said, give the ok to a search, knowing that a stash of drugs or cash is hidden.  They're hoping and praying the cops dont find it.  

If the cop pulled you over and you had a duffel bag full of cash, and the cop asked you what it was for, I"m damn sure you'd fire off an answer just as soon as the question was asked.  Now, I'd be willing to bet the average criminal is going to stutter, act all nervous....."Well, ummm...er....well....ummm...."  See my point?  So even if the scumbag said it was for a new car and his rent money, the cop probably knows that he's full of ****, so he'll keep pressuring him, until he gets a search or an asnwer that'll allow him to dig deeper.

I'm NOT saying that there are no bad cops.  I think we've gone around this block before in other threads.  I also know cops that will take the small amount of drugs and give the badguy a break.  They take it and process it in evidence.  Yet they let the guy go with a "Dont let me ****ing see you driving in this area again, you got it!!!!  I'm letting you off easy, but next time I'll haul your ****ing *** off to jail!"  I've heard the stories of it happening and I've see it first hand happening.  

Come on man, do I have to explain all this stuff?  I'm sure you know how it is.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So let's say it is a consent search. Cops ask to search, nervous driver gives permission. They find a bundle of cash. Now, that's a good reason to ask questions of the driver - and to attempt to develop PC - but where is the drug-sniffing dog that alerts on the money? Where are the drugs? Where is the crime? It looks very clearly as if the people involved are having their cash confiscated, but no charges filed. Since when do police do civil asset forfeiture without an arrest or charges being filed? And then they're essentially saying they are trading charges for cash? Letting bad guys go if they give up their money? That sounds like extortion to me.
> 
> Even if the cash is found subsequent to a voluntary search, where is the PC for seizing it?


 
If you read my very first post, I was thinking the same thing...that this PD is FUBAR.  If in fact this is what is happening, then YES, an investigation needs to be done.  If this is a half baked, missing key info story that was cooked by the media...well, I for one am not basing my sole decision on that.  God knows how often they **** up or leave key stuff out of the story.


----------



## elder999 (May 7, 2009)

WIthout commenting on the particular circumstances of the original post.

I sold a Harley back in 1995 for about $8000. Dude paid cash; I took cash, and the bank took cash-no problems.

I've been selling off the car collection over the last 2 or so years. With the exception of a couple of way more expensive ones, most of the buyers have paid cash;I took cash, and the bank took cash-no problems.

I keep fairly extensive records of those transactions, though-I think this alone would be enough to keep any suspicion of the source of my cash being nefarious.The banks usually don't blink an eye if you deposit less than $10,000-_any_ deposits over that amount, checks included, and they have to report it to the feds. I have heard, though, that they might be reporting someone like me, who makes regular large cash deposits, to DHS or some other authority, which is somewhat amusing to me. With my work situation, though, it's likely that I'd be suspected of selling something besides cars for that money, and that's why I've been keeping records...

It's still legal, I can still carry it, and, while I have bit of plastic, I usually still *do* carry it, and yeah, usually not much less than $300, and often more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> WIthout commenting on the particular circumstances of the original post.
> 
> I sold a Harley back in 1995 for about $8000. Dude paid cash; I took cash, and the bank took cash-no problems.
> 
> ...



The Patriot Act and Sarbannes-Oxley require banks to fill out certain reports, some of which are keyed to amounts ($10K) and some of which are not tied to any particular amount.  Examples are a SIR (suspicious incident report) and others of the sort.  However, that does not make it illegal to perform those transactions.  It just means a form is filed and an investigation 'may' be done.  You probably would not know that the form was filed or that an investigation was done - the bank is not supposed to tell you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> If you read my very first post, I was thinking the same thing...that this PD is FUBAR.  If in fact this is what is happening, then YES, an investigation needs to be done.  If this is a half baked, missing key info story that was cooked by the media...well, I for one am not basing my sole decision on that.  God knows how often they **** up or leave key stuff out of the story.



When I read that the PD 'gave back' some of the money when challenged makes me think they've got something to hide.  I will wait to hear more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> Then again, how many LEO shows that we see on TV or incidents that we've seen in RL, where someone knows damn well that they have drugs in the car, yet they let the cops search anyways.  Happens all the time.  The badguys are hoping, that being the key word, that the cops dont find anything.  They're taking a gamble.   And now, once they have the OK from the driver, simply calling for a dog is another option.  Happens all the time where I work.



People often give consent to search ill-advisedly.  However, if the consent is given, and money is found, now what?  It's still not PC for an arrest, let alone a civil asset forfeiture.  You have to tie the money to some illegal activity or it is just money.  No one is required to explain why they have money in the absence of any other factors.



> Also keep in mind Bill, that you are speaking and thinking like a LEO.  You know the ins and outs, because IIRC, you mentioned that you are in that field or were at one point.  However, I'd be willing to bet that your typical dealer, carrier, etc., doesnt have the mental know-how, to think like that.



Granted.  I just still want to know what happened AFTER the money was found.  If there was PC for arrest and civil forfeiture, where were the arrests, and where are the drugs?  If the money is drug-tainted, there are many requirements tied to seizing the money - and if the Texas law being quoted in the news about civil asset forfeiture, there has to be a charge and a conviction - you can't just take people's money off them in exchange for letting them go.


----------



## MJS (May 7, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People often give consent to search ill-advisedly. However, if the consent is given, and money is found, now what? It's still not PC for an arrest, let alone a civil asset forfeiture. You have to tie the money to some illegal activity or it is just money. No one is required to explain why they have money in the absence of any other factors.
> 
> 
> 
> Granted. I just still want to know what happened AFTER the money was found. If there was PC for arrest and civil forfeiture, where were the arrests, and where are the drugs? If the money is drug-tainted, there are many requirements tied to seizing the money - and if the Texas law being quoted in the news about civil asset forfeiture, there has to be a charge and a conviction - you can't just take people's money off them in exchange for letting them go.


 
Yes, I see your points.  I was going more on the lines of the initial search.  To just take the cash....no, without a good reason, probably not much they can do.  I mean, aside from taking down info on the people in the car, info on the car, etc., they're probably going to just let them go.  Of course, if there was that much cash, perhaps checking with surrounding towns to see if there were any burglaries, robberies, etc.  

I still think that the person or people in the car are going to be grilled for a few though.  I mean, if you pulled a car over and saw a bunch of electronic equipment in the back...who drives around with stuff like that?  Sure, anyone is free to, but logically, who really does?  I think that was the point Twin Fist was making earlier.  You're free to carry a million dollars on you, but who does and why would you?  Even if you carry cash to do all your business transactions, ie: bill paying, rent, etc., would you carry your life savings, or just what you need for the moment?  

I'd be willing to bet that if we lined up 20 random people at the grocery store or shopping mall, not one would be carrying 6 grand.  Again, I think people are looking at averages.  The "average" person doesnt do it.  Most people probably pay their bills online or by check.  Could you run into someone like that? Sure, but IMO, I'm saying the majority probably doesnt.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 7, 2009)

MJS said:


> I still think that the person or people in the car are going to be grilled for a few though.  I mean, if you pulled a car over and saw a bunch of electronic equipment in the back...who drives around with stuff like that?  Sure, anyone is free to, but logically, who really does?  I think that was the point Twin Fist was making earlier.  You're free to carry a million dollars on you, but who does and why would you?  Even if you carry cash to do all your business transactions, ie: bill paying, rent, etc., would you carry your life savings, or just what you need for the moment?



Sure, I agree, it would be suspicious.  But 'mere suspicion' is only good for asking questions.  If PC isn't developed, as you said, do an FI card on them and send them on their way.

Let's say my backseat is jammed with electronics.  I have no receipt, no explanation for the stuff.  The police would be justified to check serial numbers against NCIC to see if it was reported stolen, contact their dispatch center to see if there were local reports of thefts, etc - but they have a fairly short window in which to do that.  If nothing turns up, they have the Field Interview or Field Contact card, the serial number of the equipment, and the turn me loose.  If something comes up stolen later, hooray.  If not, they have no valid basis for detaining me, arresting me, or confiscating my equipment because it is 'suspicious'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 7, 2009)

I have a friend who drives around with probably $20k in electronics in his van. Printers, pcs, and a monitor or 2.  He's an on site repair tech.  

As to cash....what's that?


----------



## elder999 (May 7, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to cash....what's that?


 

We're not quite there *yet*, but soon enough.....I guess it's kind of hard to rent a car or get a hotel room using just cash.....


----------



## blindsage (May 7, 2009)

Bill you are right, I should not have said probable cause in my previous post.  But as you have elucidated it would be reason for suspicion.  I agree though, without actual PC there wouldn't be a reason to search and find the money and without evidence of criminal activity there wouldn't be any reason to detain or confiscate.


----------



## Archangel M (May 7, 2009)

There are various situations where an officer can confiscate property without an arrest. Ive kicked people out of cars and towed them when Ive asked them who the car belongs to and I got "uhhh..its my cousins girlfriends"...who is your cousin? "I call him Trey..." Whats his full name? "I dont know man."...and on and on...no address, no phone numbers to call to verify if he has permission to have the car. The guy has a history of auto theft. OUT! Im towing this car until I can contact the owner.....I have no PC to arrest, but I have enough RS to not let someone drive off with what may very well be a stolen car. 

Ive never been a vice officer and Im not interested in digging up all the pertinent law, but you dont need "PC" to seize cash, just RS.

If you have a high paying job, you could easily travel around with $8000 and if you are able to convince the officers it was legally gained, you should have no problems.

However, if you have no job, drugs in the car, a history of slinging dope, the money is in a ball of $20s, ect...Officers may confiscate as little as a couple hundred.

There are many factors that go into reasonable suspicion that the money was gained legally:

Lack of means to make the money
Lack of reasonable explanation about where the money came from
Hidden money
Drugs or paraphernalia present
Known drug dealer
Drug dog alert
No one in the car claims the money (happens quite often with drug money)

In the end though, the officers are not the bottom line. If you have any money seized, there will be a seizure hearing where the courts will determine if the money was gained illegally or not.

Like it or not thats what the current drug laws allow. Im not arguing that point, just the current procedure 

Thats not to say that the cops in this particular case were right or wrong. IMO the push to get the suspect to sign away his rights to the property on the scene leaves me suspicious....


----------



## Twin Fist (May 7, 2009)

me too. I asked around some friends today, and while no one knew this particular cop, opinions were split about wether this was true or not.

so as of now, i am on the fence.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 7, 2009)

Ok seriosuly... just to everyone who Poo Poos the Idea of legitmate carrying of that much cash...

I had almost 6k in cash when I bought my motorcycle.  I negotiated the dealership down by 2grand on the stipulation I walk in with Cash in hand.  I left, went to my bank, arranged the withdrawal, went back 2 days later picked up the cash, and rode out of the dealership on the bike with my plates in place and the title in my pocket.

I did the same thing with my Camaro, only I had 4k in cash at the time, and paid the rest on my plastic.

Do I regularly carry that much cash?  No.  But I don't see whereas I should lose that money to the police just cuz I have it as some people here have suggested.


----------



## blindsage (May 7, 2009)

So you're saying you're a drug dealer :uhyeah:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 7, 2009)

or a terrorist.


----------



## elder999 (May 8, 2009)

Or a gambler. I've taken more than $6000 in cash to Vegas or Tahoe, and a little less to Laughlin. We've almost always flown to Vegas or Tahoe, but we've almost always ridden the bike to Laughlin. 

Maybe these folks are all on their way to a casino in Shreveport?


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2009)

That's just it..this has all been an exercise in maybes..perhaps...and what if's.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 8, 2009)

you wouldnt use 59 (i said 259 earlier, but it is 59, I always call them eachothers names)to get to shreveport, from anywhere really. If you are north of Tenaha, you just hope onto 79 and get on 20. 

if you are south of tenaha, you would take 7 over to 5. Maybe if you were comming on on 59 from houston, but teven then, it isnt the best way, or the most often taken

i dunno


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2009)

I thought the original story was that he had the cash "to buy a car"...a common bull **** explanation. Not that it couldnt be a fact, but it's a common explanation used by lower level dealers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I thought the original story was that he had the cash "to buy a car"...a common bull **** explanation. Not that it couldnt be a fact, but it's a common explanation used by lower level dealers.



Let's say they are all low-level drug dealers.

Why were they not charged with crimes?

Where are the drugs?  Why are the police not saying that the money was 'drug money' and confiscated on that basis?

Why would the police also take things like the rings and jewelry some drivers were wearing, or threaten to have their children taken away unless the drivers signed away possession of their property?

Assuming they are all low-level drug dealers, it still appears to be extortion, and that's still illegal.


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's say they are all low-level drug dealers.
> 
> Why were they not charged with crimes?
> 
> ...



I don't know, and I have stated that the circumstances seem suspicious to me...haven't I? However you keep repeating the "charged with crimes" thing...I have posted repeatedly that an arrest isnt always required for a confiscation. But the lack of stated RS in this story IS suspicious.

But this story is only one sided.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I don't know, and I have stated that the circumstances seem suspicious to me...haven't I?



My bad.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> However you keep repeating the "charged with crimes" thing...I have posted repeatedly that an arrest isnt always required for a confiscation.



I believe it depends on state law.  Texas' law actually appears to be somewhat better than some.  In Colorado, they have really had some abuses, including hotels confiscated by the city of Denver because a hooker was arrested in one of the rooms, homes lost because the police found the teenage son dealing pot out the back door, etc.

It looks like this is how they are doing it:

http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/cr/001.00.000059.00.html



> Art. 59.03. SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND.  (a) Property subject to
> forfeiture under this chapter, other than property described by
> Article 59.12, may be seized by any peace officer under authority of
> a search warrant.
> ...



According to another story I read about this situation, the officers in question would threaten to charge the drivers with 'conspiracy to distribute drugs' unless they agreed to turn over their worldly possessions to them and sign a 'voluntary' agreement.  The idea was that the people in question were always from out of the area and otherwise appeared to have little means to return and fight a protracted legal battle.  So they signed.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11707305



> But the lack of stated RS in this story IS suspicious.
> 
> But this story is only one sided.....



Indeed it is.  The fact that the few people who managed to return and get a lawyer and threaten to sue always got their money back also seems suspicious.  And the fact that the judge in the current case has granted 'class action' status says something, too - judges are supposed to do that only when it appears that there is a strong chance of the case prevailing, unless I am mistaken.

It's not the first time that civil asset forfeiture has come under the microscope.

Wikipedia: Donald P. Scott

Civil Asset Forfeiture was designed to encourage local police to be enthusiastic in their 'drug war' efforts, by splitting any seized funds with the departments that made the busts.  State laws were rewritten to allow easy forfeiture - in Colorado, if your property is seized, you have to sue to get it back, EVEN IF YOU ARE FOUND NOT GUILTY of any crime.  Doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent - once seized, your property is bye-bye unless you have the money and time to hire a lawyer and sue.

Just one of the many reasons I am no longer involved with law enforcement.


----------



## Archangel M (May 8, 2009)

Im not interested in opening the can of worms that is forfeiture. Im just trying to point out that there are situations where officers can take property without an arrest. Even in the section you quoted:



> Art. 59.03. SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND. * (a) Property subject to
> forfeiture under this chapter, other than property described by
> Article 59.12*, may be seized by any peace officer under authority of
> a search warrant.


Only applies to property seized for forfeiture.

 Even according to that statute...if it was a consent search it would fit. There has been no mention of the circumstances of this seizure so who knows....

What I do find interesting in regards to this particular case is this section of the same Texas Law:



> (d)  A person in the possession of property at the time a
> peace officer seizes the property under this chapter may at the time
> of seizure assert the person's interest in or right to the property.
> A peace officer who seizes property under this chapter may not at
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 9, 2009)

A couple of things:

I can't say what the officers told people that they pulled over.  That is up for a court to decide.  But....

1.  It is not uncommon for police officers to use ruses to get further evidence or admissions to crimes.  Nor is there anything illegal about it.  It may be rude, and therefore against a department policy, depending on what is said, but not illegal.  The exception is a possible Miranda violation.

2.  I can assure you that if I were to pull you over, it is more then likely that I can search your car, at least the passenger compartment, without your consent, and it be perfectly legal.  I don't know how many cops here are gonna hate me for telling "secrets", but as I believe that most of the people here are law abiding citizens, I'll say it anyway.

Case law Pennsylvania vs. Mimms states that a law enforcement officer can order any vehicle occupant that is detained out of a vehicle for any, or no, reason what so ever.  Once done, all I then have to do is ask you for your vehicle registration and insurance.  As most people do not keep those documents on their person, I am then legally allowed to search the those areas of the vehicle where those documents can reasonably be.  That include center console, underneath seats, glove compartments, etc.  

So, all this stuff about needing PC to arrest or even reasonable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or contraband goes out the window under these circumstances.

3.  Now, under drug asset forfeiture laws, it is ridiculously easy for officers to seize money.  In my opinion, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, it is incumbent upon the citizen to prove that he should have the money.  You know, no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in this context.  Utterly ridiculous.  But not illegal under current written laws and case laws.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 1.  It is not uncommon for police officers to use ruses to get further evidence or admissions to crimes.  Nor is there anything illegal about it.  It may be rude, and therefore against a department policy, depending on what is said, but not illegal.  The exception is a possible Miranda violation.



Yes, you are quite correct.  However, it would seem to be a bit different to (as reportedly happened) to have a suspect sign a statement saying that they were surrendering their cash and valuables to the police and in return, the police would not seek to have their child taken away from them.

That's a bit more than the traditional _"Your partner back there in the car just told me what happened.  Why don't you tell me your side of the story before I decide to believe him and lock you up and let him go?"_



> 2.  I can assure you that if I were to pull you over, it is more then likely that I can search your car, at least the passenger compartment, without your consent, and it be perfectly legal.  I don't know how many cops here are gonna hate me for telling "secrets", but as I believe that most of the people here are law abiding citizens, I'll say it anyway.
> 
> Case law Pennsylvania vs. Mimms states that a law enforcement officer can order any vehicle occupant that is detained out of a vehicle for any, or no, reason what so ever.  Once done, all I then have to do is ask you for your vehicle registration and insurance.  As most people do not keep those documents on their person, I am then legally allowed to search the those areas of the vehicle where those documents can reasonably be.  That include center console, underneath seats, glove compartments, etc.
> 
> So, all this stuff about needing PC to arrest or even reasonable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or contraband goes out the window under these circumstances.



Could be. It's been a long time for me, but back in the day, it was the 'lunge area' that could be checked, and only for weapons.  No prying open locked areas like the center console or the glove box if they were locked, and no searching the trunk, etc, without permission or a warrant.

As to "PC," the officer still has to have PC to make the stop. You can't pull someone over and THEN develop PC for having stopped them.  If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc.  If they're frisky you can certainly hook them up for your own safety.  And as I mentioned, back in the day, you could search the lunge area of the car for weapons.  That's about it.  Doesn't give you PC to search the whole car or pry locked things open - unless the laws have changed since my day, and they might have.




> 3.  Now, under drug asset forfeiture laws, it is ridiculously easy for officers to seize money.  In my opinion, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, it is incumbent upon the citizen to prove that he should have the money.  You know, no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in this context.  Utterly ridiculous.  But not illegal under current written laws and case laws.



However, again - people keep saying _"Yeah, these people were probably drug dealers."_  OK, let's say they are. The money still isn't 'drug money' unless it can be linked.  Where are the drugs?  Where is the 'hit' of a drug-sniffing dog on the money?  Where is the arrest and where are the drug charges or the conspiracy to sell charges?  This thing stinks.  At best, we're saying the police are jacking drug dealers and keeping their money but letting them go to continue plying their trade.  That's not right either.


----------



## qwksilver61 (May 10, 2009)

There were similar incidents that occurred in New Orleans Louisiana back in the 80's one of my friends who worked DOD spent a week in jail ,was given a bus ticket (after having his car impounded) out of town.true story...
seems no matter where you go you find corruption on all levels.


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2009)

Wait, towns use tickets as revenue enhancement? I thought it was about public safety.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> .
> 
> So, all this stuff about needing PC to arrest or even reasonable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or contraband goes out the window under these circumstances.
> 
> .


 
So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.


----------



## shesulsa (May 10, 2009)

Things look suspicious on both sides here.  I wonder why someone who wanted to pay "cash" for an item wouldn't purchase a cashier's check? It's negotiable same as cash as are money orders.  That said, I've paid $6000 cash for a car ... and transported it a special way.   I've heard of others paying cash for a car then reporting the price as much lower to the licensing department to keep the tax low. Naughty, I know, but I think it does happen a lot.

I've known a handful of folks who actually walk around with a wad of cash - not ones, either.

I'm one of those "don't paint the whole town with the same brush" people and would say, as far as having large sums of cash on hand goes, just because YOU don't do it and most people who do won't admit to it, don't believe it's not possible unless you're doing something wrong ... it's a popularized opinion. 

Of course it's not safe to bury your cash in coffee cans in the yard or hide it in your house ... how many people likely do this with the current economy?

As to the cops, I imagine they are limited in their ability to effectively do their job ... but one simply HAS to wonder when they seize and ... don't charge.  

Texas ... it's the new California.


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2009)

My dad used to buy and sell fruits and vegetables. One night, he had a fairly horrific car accident (no injuries) The ambulance took him to the hospital and the police were asking me why he had $5700 on him in cash. I explained about him dealing mostly in cash and they asked if he was dealing drugs. ***DO NOT LAUGH IN THE COP's FACE*** they do NOT like it...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, you are quite correct. However, it would seem to be a bit different to (as reportedly happened) to have a suspect sign a statement saying that they were surrendering their cash and valuables to the police and in return, the police would not seek to have their child taken away from them.
> 
> That's a bit more than the traditional _"Your partner back there in the car just told me what happened. Why don't you tell me your side of the story before I decide to believe him and lock you up and let him go?"_


 
I certainly understand that.  There have been instances that I have told people that the consequences of their actions could lead to their children being taken from them.  That is not what was reported in this instance though.




> Could be. It's been a long time for me, but back in the day, it was the 'lunge area' that could be checked, and only for weapons. No prying open locked areas like the center console or the glove box if they were locked, and no searching the trunk, etc, without permission or a warrant.


 
Not the current case law.  If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.



> As to "PC," the officer still has to have PC to make the stop. You can't pull someone over and THEN develop PC for having stopped them.


 
True.  But nearly every vehicle can be stopped for some violation.  It isn't that difficult for an officer who knows their state's vehicle code laws to do.

If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc. 
[/quote]

A detention by legal definition is not an arrest.  Their is a difference.  However, issuing them a citation is technically an arrest.  As an example, I may stop someone for a vehicle code violation, and not issue them a citation.  In that case, no arrest has been made, and legally it is a detention only. 



> If they're frisky you can certainly hook them up for your own safety. And as I mentioned, back in the day, you could search the lunge area of the car for weapons. That's about it. Doesn't give you PC to search the whole car or pry locked things open - unless the laws have changed since my day, and they might have.


 
Again, you cannot search the car for contraband, in the example that I gave.  You are legally searching for the registration and insurance.  If you happen to find something, then it is admissable because the original basis for the search was legal.



> However, again - people keep saying _"Yeah, these people were probably drug dealers."_ OK, let's say they are. The money still isn't 'drug money' unless it can be linked. Where are the drugs? Where is the 'hit' of a drug-sniffing dog on the money? Where is the arrest and where are the drug charges or the conspiracy to sell charges? This thing stinks. At best, we're saying the police are jacking drug dealers and keeping their money but letting them go to continue plying their trade. That's not right either.


 
It seems to me, from the sound of it, that these officers are not keeping the money and jewelry for themselves.  If that were the case, the department would not  be giving it back, because there would be nothing to give back.

I think it is more than likely that you have overzealous cops trying to catch bad guys.  I have seen cops who take stuff.  They don't then turn around and give it to the department.



> So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.


 
I made no judgement on the right or wrongness of this issue.  I simply told you what is.

However, I would suggest that you read the applicable case law on the issue.  See Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, and Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.

The issue actually has less to do with the safety of the public as opposed to the safety of the officer in allowing a person back into a vehicle that he has previously ordered the occupants out of.


----------



## Big Don (May 11, 2009)

Having the police give a 17 yr old $5700 CASH was probably a BAD decision...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Quote:
> So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.
> I made no judgement on the right or wrongness of this issue.  I simply told you what is.



Just a point for clarification - I did not make the statement above.  I'm sure you didn't mean it to appear I did, but it looks in your quoting as if I did, so I need to correct that perception.

As to your point about the police not keeping the seized money and property for themselves, but instead turning it over to the department, you are quite right.  However, this leads us back to the area of abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, where the police enthusiastically seize everything they possibly can - in some cases manufacturing the reasons for the seizures - in order that their department might partake of the booty.  

Rather like pirates sharing the loot with the crew instead of taking whatever they can for personal gain.  I believe I linked to a story about the police department that thought a margarita machine was an appropriate use of seized money for the department, another about a man shot to death in what the DA later said was primarily a search motivated by the local sheriff's department desire to seize his home (the sheriff sued the DA for saying that - and lost in court).

Legitimate arrests and seizures should frequently result in criminal charges.  When there is a seizure and no criminal charges, it looks suspicious - just like people who happen to be pulled over carrying a large amount of cash.  Even if the people whose cash and property were seized were all drug dealers, the department in question appears to have simply been taking their money and letting them go - to commit more drug crimes.  That serves the public how?

Thanks for the update on the legal authority to search incident to a traffic stop.  I didn't know that.  I'll certainly make sure I have my license and registration and insurance papers on me if pulled over and asked to exit the vehicle.

By the way,  you didn't mention if you could pry open locked storage areas in your search for a registration - can you?  If so, and you find no contraband, are you or your department liable for damages?  I realize that in the execution of a lawful search warrant, even if nothing is found, the police / municipality are not liable for damage done, but I'm curious about your traffic-stop searches.

I mean, if I were pulled over, made to exit the vehicle, and realized I'd left my registration in my car, I'd be kind of mad if you popped the lock on my glovebox and center console, especially if you didn't find any contraband.  Or would you just take my keys off me without my permission?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 11, 2009)

Different jurisdiction, but... give a Border Patrol some lip, they'll dismantle your car as you watch, then toss you a toolkit and tell you to put it back together within the hour or they'll cite you for littering. (Story told to my by a US Border Guard back in the 90's)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Different jurisdiction, but... give a Border Patrol some lip, they'll dismantle your car as you watch, then toss you a toolkit and tell you to put it back together within the hour or they'll cite you for littering. (Story told to my by a US Border Guard back in the 90's)



Whole different set of rules, though.  Border Patrol controls entry to the country.  They can search anything they like before granting entry, no warrant required.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not the current case law.  If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.



By the way, did some quick checking and found this:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Search+incident+to+arrest:+another+look-a054869000



> CONCLUSION
> 
> The Supreme Court has recognized a police officer's authority to conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful custodial arrest. The scope of the search includes the person of the arrestee, personal items in his possession, the area into which the arrestee could reach at the time of arrest to retrieve a weapon, any means of escape, or destructible evidence, as well as a search of immediately adjoining areas for people posing a threat. The timing of the search of the person and personal items is fairly flexible; the area searches should be contemporaneous with the arrest. The objects of the search incident to arrest are weapons, any means of escape, and evidence of any crime the arrestee could destroy. This authority is predicated upon the dual concerns of officer safety and preservation of evidence for trial.
> 
> *In Knowles v. Iowa, the Supreme Court emphasized that the warrantless search incident to arrest is triggered only by a lawful custodial arrest.* Mere probable cause to arrest, or the citation process alone, are not sufficient to justify the search.



There may be more recent case law than this, but this is what I found and it jibes with what we were taught back in the day.

I'm not disputing your statements, but wondering if you happen to know of case law that would overturn Knowles?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Whole different set of rules, though.  Border Patrol controls entry to the country.  They can search anything they like before granting entry, no warrant required.


..and up to 100 miles in too.  But, that's a different argument. (Course my worst BP run in involved an hour detainment over my artwork in Canada)

I think what the police do, depends on their jurisdiction, and their own nature.  Here in WNY we had someone get tasered over refusal to provide a DNA sample (despite a sample being on file already, etc).  

Going back to the original story, when I can, I pay cash. I don't answer ID questions, and I don't register warranties cards. I have a problem with "you have alot of cash" being suspicious. Yes, the bad guys do it, but in theory there's alot more good guys right?  I mean, how far do you push suspicious?  

"I heard him Jerry, he wiped front to back. Only the Mafia wipes like that, break down the door, we'll catch him with his pants down!"

I mean, draw the line somewhere.

I'm moving to Texas. I might be carrying a wad of cash. I might have a car full of electronics. I might have a huge amount of dvd's. I might have NY plates on the car.  Gee, sounds like this podunk town would give me grief.  Good thing I ain't gin through there. They might think I'm a crime lord, or an arms dealer (given the 20+ weapons I'll have in the car with me).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have a problem with "you have alot of cash" being suspicious. Yes, the bad guys do it, but in theory there's alot more good guys right?  I mean, how far do you push suspicious?



Ditto.

I take it further.  Too many people, in my opinion, are perfectly OK with police abuses as long as it appears to happen to bad guys.  Too few people, in my opinion, stop to consider that if the police can break the law to catch bad people, they can break the law and do horrible things to you.  That's why we have limits on police behavior - not to molly-coddle and protect criminals, but to protect innocent citizens.

There was once a popular saying, that it was _'better that a hundred guilty men go free, than that one innocent man go to prison'_.  I don't hear that much anymore, and I believe it is because a lot of people don't buy into it anymore.  They see people like OJ and the like going scot-free and appearing to flout the law, and they see the police as having their hands tied by laws that protect criminals, and they _want something done_.

I understand the outrage, but it's a narrow and short-term viewpoint to encourage police abuses in the hopes more bad guys will be caught.  What damages the civil rights of bad guys (and suspected bad guys) damages the rights of all of us.

If we can't see that, we're doomed.

The police have a difficult job to do, and they have to fight against criminals with one hand tied behind their backs, so to speak.  But this is our system of laws, set up to protect us from the potential for abuse.  It makes the police's job harder - it keeps us safer in our civil liberties.  

Trading one for the other is not a good idea, in my opinion.


----------



## MJS (May 11, 2009)

Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no.  Clarification please.   So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it?  Can he ask what its for?  Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.  

As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much.  Failure to signal.  Thats enough right there for an initial stop.  Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use.    I was on a ride along with a cop.  We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was.  It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic.  Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car.  The reason?  Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.  

Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways.  Is it always a sure shot?  Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no.  Clarification please.   So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it?  Can he ask what its for?  Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.



To the best of my knowledge...

Let's say you get pulled over for a legit traffic stop.  And the cop notices you have a big old bag of cash money in your back seat, open for the world to see.  And let's say you're driving far from home on a backwater state highway that is known as a 'drug conduit'.

Is that suspicious?  Yes.  It is suspicious.  And the courts recognize that the police have the right to do further investigation based on _'reasonable suspicion'_.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

But reasonable suspicion is not the same as probable cause.  Probable cause can be developed as a result of an investigation brought about by mere suspicion.

However, in our example above, if you say "None of your business," to the police officer when he asks you want that money is for, he's pretty much stuck - unless he can develop his PC some other way.

He could ask for permission to search your car.  If you say yes, then anything illegal that is found is admissible in court against you.

He could call for a currency-sniffing dog if one is reasonably available to him (he can't detain you forever waiting).  If the dog shows up and alerts on your money, the courts have said that this is PC for the seizure and further testing of the money.  If it is found to have detectable amounts of illegal drugs on it, it can then be legally seized by the government as proceeds of illegal drug sales - the money itself is presumed to be contraband.

And according to 5-0 Kenpo, he could search your car for your registration and wherever your registration might be - I'm still not so sure of that, but I've been out of law enforcement for a long time, he could be right.  But again, the cash itself is not illegal - without something else, it's just money, it appears to be yours, and there's not much he can do about it just because you have it.

As far as confiscation goes - meaning the permanent loss of the money - I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement agency can indiscriminately take money (and jewelry and other objects of value) from motorists on the mere suspicion that they are drug dealers.  State laws differ, but without probable cause to believe it - not reasonable suspicion - I just don't believe it.



> As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much.  Failure to signal.  Thats enough right there for an initial stop.  Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use.    I was on a ride along with a cop.  We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was.  It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic.  Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car.  The reason?  Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.



Yes, that's PC for a stop.  And yes, any traffic violation will do.



> Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways.  Is it always a sure shot?  Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.



Law enforcement officers often develop good instincts over years of experience.  They know body language, they know liars, they know bad people almost on sight.  I doubt anyone but a defense attorney would dispute that.

And often it is a game - the cop knows the guy is dirty, he knows the cop knows, and now it is a dance to see who screws up first.

All that is important.  It doesn't change the laws, though.  Knowing a guy is dirty doesn't give the police the authority to break the rules to catch him.  The main reason is that if they can it to catch the bad guy, they can do it to any one of us.

And the oft-heard refrain _"If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear,"_ doesn't really get it.  Your cash could be legally and clearly yours, and you're just a guy who likes to take his money out for a drive in the country now and then - and the police just take it for no reason other than a police officer, with his years of experience, thinks you're dirty.  And while I know 99.99% of cops are decent and honorable human beings who would never do that, there are still those who would.

Therefore, IMHO, the laws regarding civil asset forfeiture and search and seizure have to apply to everyone - even dirty drug dealers - or they apply to no one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 11, 2009)

> He could call for a currency-sniffing dog if one is reasonably available to him (he can't detain you forever waiting). If the dog shows up and alerts on your money, the courts have said that this is PC for the seizure and further testing of the money. If it is found to have detectable amounts of illegal drugs on it, it can then be legally seized by the government as proceeds of illegal drug sales - the money itself is presumed to be contraband.



Could be any money though.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 11, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Could be any money though.
> http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp



Yeah, that is a problem.  However, I've also read dissenting opinions that currency-sniffing dogs can't detect levels that low.

http://www.k9fleck.org/nlu09.htm

It's interesting stuff.  In some cases, it appears that if the dog alerts on your money, it's bye-bye money.  Even if the money was legit and you innocently happened to have money that had once been 'in the presence' of narcotics.  Supposing the money had been to the bank and then back out again, it could happen.  I'd sure be mad if it happened to me, I'll tell you that much.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 11, 2009)

> By the way, you didn't mention if you could pry open locked storage areas in your search for a registration - can you? If so, and you find no contraband, are you or your department liable for damages? I realize that in the execution of a lawful search warrant, even if nothing is found, the police / municipality are not liable for damage done, but I'm curious about your traffic-stop searches.


 
The case law that I have seen does not mention anything about this, so I can't say.  I would imagine however, that it depends on the circumstances.  As you know, the more reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, the easier it is to justify actions.



> There may be more recent case law than this, but this is what I found and it jibes with what we were taught back in the day.
> 
> I'm not disputing your statements, but wondering if you happen to know of case law that would overturn Knowles?


 
I don't think its a matter of overturning Knowles.  Here is the case law (Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60), cited with contemperary cases in which it was applied:



> Source: California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook
> 
> Minor stopped for speeding was unlicensed and failed to provide evidence of his identity, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration.  Prior to issuing a citation, the officer felt under the driver's seat for documentation relating to the driver or the truck.  From a position behind the driver's seat, the officer then looked under the seat and found a glass pipe and a box containing a vial with a white powder residue.  HELD: The seizure of the pipe and vial was valid.  The area under the front seat, unlike an area such as the trunk, is a location where the documents reasonably may be expected to be found.
> 
> Driver stopped for unsafe lane changes denied having his license or any documentation concerning the car.  The officer searched in the glove compartment, under the driver's seat, and under the front passenger's seat, where he found a wallet containing the driver's identification and a baggie of methamphetamine.  HELD: The search for documents and the seizure and search of the wallet were valid.


 
I will make the caveat that this may only apply in California, because the Arturo decision was a State Supreme Court issue.  I don't think it would be a stretch to say that other state's decisions would be similar.

Also, there are many other ways to look at this issue, other then the one that I provided.

If the officer wishes to issue a citation, or merely has the ability to do so, this is technically an arrest.  (Note, this is different in Knowles speaking about the citation process *alone.*)  That would mean that, incident to this arrest, the officer can search the passenger compartment of the vehicle.  He can even then search the trunk under the guise of an inventory search if he has the ability to tow the vehicle.

Those are the ways to get into a car to search it.  Not too difficult for even a green cop.

But regardless, for my own opinion, I hate the way that asset forfeiture laws are used.  I, in my own silly way I guess, believe I saw something in the U.S. Constitution about being secure in your property except by due process.  I didn't think that included any cop on the side of the road deciding that it was drug money and therefore could be seized.  Or even any investigator.  I always thought that meant judge and jury.  Silly me.


----------



## jks9199 (May 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> A couple of things:
> 
> I can't say what the officers told people that they pulled over.  That is up for a court to decide.  But....
> 
> ...


That's a stretch...  _Mimms_ and _Wilson_ give us the authority to control the movements of all of the occupants of the car, either keeping them in the car or having them exit.  They don't really address searches...  The Carroll Doctrine gets you a search of the car, if you have PC that the evidence you're searching for is in the car, but I think you're stretching to search for evidence of insurance/licensing.  Most states still have a law on the books that says we can stop a car "to inspect its equipment, operation, manufacturer's serial or engine number... or to obtain necessary information."  But I don't think anyone is teaching rooks that they can stop a car without at least reasonable suspicion, right?  And your search would have to stop as soon as you found the registration -- and it'd take some quick explaining as to why you started in the back seat. 

But -- that doesn't mean that there's not a lot of ways to get into the car...


----------



## jks9199 (May 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Could be. It's been a long time for me, but back in the day, it was the 'lunge area' that could be checked, and only for weapons.  No prying open locked areas like the center console or the glove box if they were locked, and no searching the trunk, etc, without permission or a warrant.
> 
> As to "PC," the officer still has to have PC to make the stop. You can't pull someone over and THEN develop PC for having stopped them.  If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc.  If they're frisky you can certainly hook them up for your own safety.  And as I mentioned, back in the day, you could search the lunge area of the car for weapons.  That's about it.  Doesn't give you PC to search the whole car or pry locked things open - unless the laws have changed since my day, and they might have.



Nope; you don't need PC to stop a car.  You need reasonable suspicion; the standard is not nearly the same.  I can stop a car because I can articulate facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to conclude that a crime may be afoot (like stopping a car for weaving because I suspect the driver is DUI).

Searches of cars gets more complicated -- especially in light of the US SC ruling in _Arizona v Gant_ published last month.  More in a moment...




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not the current case law.  If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you haven't, read _Gant_.  While the Court went to some lengths to make it clear that several exceptions to the search warrant requirement still remain -- it took away the idea of using _Chimel_ to get a "wingspan" search incident to arrest.  A recent VA ruling (sorry, don't have the cite handy) also made it clear that, in VA, we can't make a custodial arrest for a releasable offense without justification solely to get into the car.  I suspect that the courts will frown on creating a circumstance, like ordering the driver & occupants out of the car, to justify a search for the registration card.  Especially if the areas or sequence of the search wasn't pretty directly towards likely areas...





> I think it is more than likely that you have overzealous cops trying to catch bad guys.  I have seen cops who take stuff.  They don't then turn around and give it to the department.



Personally -- in this Texas situation, I think there's definitely some room for questions to be raised about the seizures.  I think that maybe there have been some shaky things done, maybe with nefarious intent, or maybe not.  There's just not enough to tell, and it's all one sided.


----------



## jks9199 (May 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> > Source: California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook
> >
> > Minor stopped for speeding was unlicensed and failed to provide evidence of his identity, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration. Prior to issuing a citation, the officer felt under the driver's seat for documentation relating to the driver or the truck. From a position behind the driver's seat, the officer then looked under the seat and found a glass pipe and a box containing a vial with a white powder residue. HELD: The seizure of the pipe and vial was valid. The area under the front seat, unlike an area such as the trunk, is a location where the documents reasonably may be expected to be found.
> >
> ...


The situations described are a bit more than simply stopping a car, ordering the driver out, and searching for the registration.  Even then, I suspect that your courts would have problems with a search for the registration that starts in the back seat.  Even though I've had t-stops with cars where the registration was in the back seat...  We still run into that reasonableness requirement from the Fourth Amendment, and I think that a search for the registration that starts far away from the driver is going to be problematic.

Also -- there's plenty of case law distinguishing even a criminal offense where the "arrestee" is released on a summons at the scene by the officer (or similar process) from custodial arrest.  And, I know that the Virginia Supreme Court has come down as clearly being opposed to an officer making a custodial arrest on a releasable offense without justification.



> Those are the ways to get into a car to search it.  Not too difficult for even a green cop.


Absolutely -- and I'm all for knowing and using them!


> But regardless, for my own opinion, I hate the way that asset forfeiture laws are used.  I, in my own silly way I guess, believe I saw something in the U.S. Constitution about being secure in your property except by due process.  I didn't think that included any cop on the side of the road deciding that it was drug money and therefore could be seized.  Or even any investigator.  I always thought that meant judge and jury.  Silly me.


Asset forfeiture is slippery, dangerous territory, and there have been numerous accounts of investigations conducted with asset forfeiture as a primary goal...

What bothers me about this one is that it seems to give the Texas cops a lot of latitude in "detaining" property for investigation...  I haven't looked up the code, and I don't know what administrative provisions are required (asset forfeiture in VA is complicated enough that several agencies I know dedicate a couple of officers apiece to it...), but without controls, that seems kind of scary to me.


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no.  Clarification please.   So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it?  Can he ask what its for?  Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.
> 
> As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much.  Failure to signal.  Thats enough right there for an initial stop.  Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use.    I was on a ride along with a cop.  We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was.  It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic.  Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car.  The reason?  Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways.  Is it always a sure shot?  Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.



NO.

If I needed PC I would be arresting YOU and not just confiscating the cash. The officer needs to have articulable reasonable suspicion to "confiscate". There mere  possession of a few grand in your pocket or bag is not typically enough (unless its shrink wrapped and hidden in the firewall). The officer needs to be able to articulate why the possession is suspicious (lack of means, denial of ownership, etc..) The forfeiture hearing is where the determination of "PC" (of a sorts) to KEEP the property is determined.

As JKS has already stated, you dont need "PC" to stop a car either...just RS.

United States v Zacher  (465 F. 3d 336 (2006) Eighth Circuit:
_A law enforcement officer  must have reasonable suspicion before he or she may seize a package  for investigatory purposes._


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2009)

Where the PC v RS confusion arises here is in the Texas Code regarding property seizure.

http://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/



> Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Forfeiture of "Contraband"-- defined as property used in the commission of a long list of felonies set forth in the code, as well as another laundry list of misdemeanors, as well as a "Crime of violence."
> 
> 
> In Texas, the State must prove that the property is subject to forfeiture by establishing that the property is contraband as set forth in the Code. Before seizing property thought to be subject to forfeiture, the State has to show probable cause. _Probable cause *in the forfeiture statutes* is a *reasonable belief *that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity set forth in the statute._
> ...



The use of "PC" in the Texas criminal code is not the same as is common use. It is basically reasonable suspicion as commonly defined.


----------



## Archangel M (May 11, 2009)

All  Arizona v Gant did for me is convince me to tow EVERY car that I arrest the driver out of. Then I can do the inventory prior to tow.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> That's a stretch... _Mim__ms_ and _Wilson_ give us the authority to control the movements of all of the occupants of the car, either keeping them in the car or having them exit. They don't really address searches...


 
I understand that.  Mimms however does allow me to set up a situation in which I can legally enter the car for the proper paperwork.  



> The Carroll Doctrine gets you a search of the car, if you have PC that the evidence you're searching for is in the car, but I think you're stretching to search for evidence of insurance/licensing.


 
You may disagree with it, but it is used successfully in prosecution in California all the time.  Don't know what else to tell you. 

Also from the CPOLS:

Indeed, in any vehicle detention situation where the driver, upon your request, "fails to produce" the necessary documentation, you have the right to conduct a limited search for the driver's license or identification and/or the vehicle registration.  Furthermore, this search--which must be carried out before you issue the citation--is not restricted to "traditional repositories," such as a glove compartment or a sun visor, but rather may included any area within the vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found.  (Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.)  Note that this area would normally not include the vehicle's trunk. 



> If you haven't, read _Gant_. While the Court went to some lengths to make it clear that several exceptions to the search warrant requirement still remain -- it took away the idea of using _Chimel_ to get a "wingspan" search incident to arrest.


 
Took a quick look at the case.  From my perspective, it really doesn't change much about how we do business.

We are talking about a "routine" traffic stop.  One maybe two officers detaining one or more occupants inside of a vehicle for a traffic offense.  In that case, Gant would not apply.  Gant specifically talks about the fact that he and the other occupant were handcuffed and "surrounded" by police officer, negating his ability to access the car.



> A recent VA ruling (sorry, don't have the cite handy) also made it clear that, in VA, we can't make a custodial arrest for a releasable offense without justification solely to get into the car.


 
We have the same thing in California.  However, we also, per statute, use the Federal rules of evidence.  Therefore, even if the evidence is found based on a technically illegal arrest, the evidence would still be admitted under Federal guidelines, which makes no distinction.



> I suspect that the courts will frown on creating a circumstance, like ordering the driver & occupants out of the car, to justify a search for the registration card. Especially if the areas or sequence of the search wasn't pretty directly towards likely areas...


 
They wrote the opinions, not cops.  If it is technically correct, then there is nothing they can do about it other then overturn established case law. 



> The situations described are a bit more than simply stopping a car, ordering the driver out, and searching for the registration. Even then, I suspect that your courts would have problems with a search for the registration that starts in the back seat. Even though I've had t-stops with cars where the registration was in the back seat... We still run into that reasonableness requirement from the Fourth Amendment, and I think that a search for the registration that starts far away from the driver is going to be problematic.


 
And as you say, you have found registration in the back seat.  So have I.  But, courts tend not to look at things on an individual basis like that.  What they will ask is was the scope of the search reasonable in light of the circumstances.  If so, what does it matter whether the search started under the front passenger seat or in the glove box.


----------

