you're not free in this country anymore

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

"If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."

That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.

In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.

"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.

As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.

"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered.

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

we've lost this country, especially when sheeple consider the bolded part 'the way it should be'.
 
Not sure why you keep using the phrase "anymore" in your thread titles. You can only be "unfreed" once, then you have to be freed before it can happen again.

Use the phrase "still not free"
 
This started with Reagans war on drugs.
The religious right have always been the pushers of the war on drugs. Which is really a war on American citizens who use drugs.

actually it was nixon who started the 'war on drugs'. since then, no dem has ever backed off that war and has in fact carried the torch into 'battle'. it isn't just the religious right occupyiant....

that said....let us hope it was just this one dumb cop who didn't know the law.
 
actually it was nixon who started the 'war on drugs'. since then, no dem has ever backed off that war and has in fact carried the torch into 'battle'. it isn't just the religious right occupyiant....

that said....let us hope it was just this one dumb cop who didn't know the law.

The power given to the DEA to seize property without due process started under Reagan I think.
I could be wrong.

that guy is not the only one to have property siezed and never be charged with a crime.
I recall a guy who ran a private plane service. He was hired by someone to fly a person somewhere. At the othe rend it was found that the passenger was carrying drugs. The DEA seized his airplane and auctioned it off and never charged the plane operator with a crime.
Somehow commerical airlines are exempt though. I have never heard of them seizing a 747 even when the employees are the ones smuggling the drugs.
 
I would like a link for that as well. I think it to be true but did not find it on the first page of search results. Not that interested. As I recall the seizure of personal property without due process first arose under Reagan and the agency seizing the money/property got to keep it...
 
I would like a link for that as well. I think it to be true but did not find it on the first page of search results. Not that interested. As I recall the seizure of personal property without due process first arose under Reagan and the agency seizing the money/property got to keep it...

could be...but i recall it starting under clinton. could have been my local state or county and nothing to do with the feds. while the seizures can be taken immediately without DP, i don't believe, it can be held indefinitely without DP. CA has a great case about local cops confiscating a man's marijuana, in a case like you're talking about, and they destroyed it, even after a judge ordered them not to. the guy took them to court and they had to reimburse him for the value of it.

ca law, medicinal herb, licensed distributor.
 
actually it was nixon who started the 'war on drugs'. since then, no dem has ever backed off that war and has in fact carried the torch into 'battle'. it isn't just the religious right occupyiant....

that said....let us hope it was just this one dumb cop who didn't know the law.
there have been numerous incidents, sometimes including whole departments, that engage in forfeiture for profit. That is the downfall of this law is that it encourages it's use.
 
The power given to the DEA to seize property without due process started under Reagan I think.
I could be wrong.

that guy is not the only one to have property siezed and never be charged with a crime.
I recall a guy who ran a private plane service. He was hired by someone to fly a person somewhere. At the othe rend it was found that the passenger was carrying drugs. The DEA seized his airplane and auctioned it off and never charged the plane operator with a crime.
Somehow commerical airlines are exempt though. I have never heard of them seizing a 747 even when the employees are the ones smuggling the drugs.

It's been expanded under every president (this one included).
 
The issue in the OP looks like a state law thing, not a federal one. But the states are just following the lead of the federal government, which passed an insane law in 1984 that made forfeiture law lean heavily in the government's favor, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. That was enacted (yes, SF, by a Democratic Congress) in pursuit of the War on Drugs under Reagan.

The federal law was modified in 2000 (I think) but it's still insane. The trouble is that many states that passed laws modeled on the CCCA haven't modified their laws. So at the state level it's still a very lucrative business for the police forces, which in many instances get to use forfeited property to fund their departments.

In short, it's totally fucked.
 
Back
Top