Texas police shake down drivers, lawsuit claims

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

or a terrorist.

 

[elder999]

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]

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

 

[Twin Fist]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.
(b) Seizure of property subject to forfeiture may be made
without warrant if:
(1) the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the property
knowingly consents;
(2) the seizure is incident to a search to which the owner,
operator, or agent in charge of the property knowingly consents;
(3) the property subject to seizure has been the subject of
a prior judgment in favor of the state in a forfeiture proceeding
under this chapter; or
(4) the seizure was incident to a lawful arrest, lawful
search, or lawful search incident to arrest.

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]

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
the time of seizure request, require, or in any manner induce any
person, including a person who asserts an interest in or right to
the property seized, to execute a document purporting to waive the
person's interest in or rights to the property.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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