The Police Are Addicted To Drug Money
Law prof Jonathan Turley writes in USA Today about policing for profits:
Across the country, citizens are increasingly finding themselves stopped on routine traffic stops or sobriety checkpoints only to be subjected to extensive questioning and searches. At a time of decreasing budgets, police seem to be hitting the streets in search of their own sources of funding.Federal and state officers are tapping into an increasingly lucrative tactic called "churning" or "policing for profits." This is how it often works:
Officers stop cars on a pretext such as not using a turn signal and then ask a series of questions about drugs or contraband in the car. If the driver does not consent to a search, officers will sometime declare that the driver is acting suspiciously and call in a drug dog or search the passenger for their own personal safety. Any drugs found can then be used to seize the car and any money inside of it. The result is that police are mining our highways for jackpot stops.
Churning has become the self-help solution for some federal agencies. The most recent example of this trend was highlighted by an investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Justice Department's inspector general found that the ATF conducted dozens of unauthorized undercover investigations into illicit cigarette sales and lost track of 420 million cigarettes worth $127 million. The investigation concluded that the ATF was engaging in churning operations designed to fund its operations and misused $162 million in profits.
...The Supreme Court allowed such deceptive use of stops in 1996 when it declared that it would no longer consider the motivations of police for such stops. Once allowed to engage in pretext stops, police have every motivation to use the tactic. To put it simply, police are developing an addiction to drug money.
Consider the case of George Reby, an insurance adjuster from New Jersey. Last year, he was stopped in Tennessee by officer Larry Bates for speeding and asked whether he had a large quantity of money. Reby said he had about $20,000 and explained that he planned to buy a car. Bates seized the money. He did not arrest Reby, mind you. Reby committed no crime. The officer stated that police would keep the money until Reby could prove to their satisfaction that it was legitimate.
Is this the country you thought you were living in?
"Any drugs found"...and if they don find any, the officer may just plant some. Drug dogs are often poorly handled, and have learned to alert, not when drugs or present, but when they understand that their handler wants them to.
Really, the only thing you can do is to restrict your communication to the absolute minimum: "No officer, I do not consent to a search". Answer no questions, provide no information not directly related to the traffic stop.
More people should also install non-obvious cameras in their cars that they can turn on at need. Having a recording of your interaction with the police may save your neck. I haven't done this yet myself, but it's rising rapidly on my "to do" list.
a_random_guy at October 31, 2013 7:19 AM
I would like to know if there are specific kinds of cars that police will target. Will they go after someone in a high-end luxury car? Do they check out somebody in a 20-year-old rusty clunker? Will they just leave mini-vans with families inside alone? The types of cars impounded in these stops should be a part of the statistics. It would help when I'm shopping around for a new car
Fayd at October 31, 2013 8:02 AM
I wish someone would sell an aromatic compound that mimics tetrahydrocanabinol. I would buy some and start smearing it on every single car I see (under the bumper or somewhere it wouldn't damage any finish) so that the "durg-sniffing" dogs would alert to *every* *single* car that came through a checkpoint.
I think after several thousand false positives, the use of dogs might be curtailed ("cur" "tailed" - get it, get it, enh, enh?) Leave it to me to make mock after a serious comment.
BlogDog at October 31, 2013 8:35 AM
Your money, your speech, and your physical being all belong to us. Your soul you may do with as you please.
Canvasback at October 31, 2013 8:59 AM
"I would like to know if there are specific kinds of cars that police will target. Will they go after someone in a high-end luxury car? "
Here's a checklist that I recall being published and used by state police along Interstate 95 in the late 1980s. It's old info now, so take it with a grain of salt.
* Large luxury cars, particularly older models.
* Black or white (?) in color
* Plates from Florida, New Jersey, or New York
* Staying in the right lane and doing exactly the speed limit
* Broken tail lights
* Driver is a young-to-middle-aged male, sole occupant
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2013 11:53 AM
Ottawa has been doing this for many many years.
Our traffic violation laws are insane, as well as parking laws, and any number of by-laws.
Enforcement goes up in years we are in the red, or election years.
Our city council is probably the most corrupt in North America, outside of Montreal.
http://watchottawa.blogspot.ca/2009/03/corruption-at-ottawa-city-hall.html
wtf at October 31, 2013 12:07 PM
("cur" "tailed" - get it, get it, enh, enh?)
That's DrMaturin's joke.
Grey Ghost at October 31, 2013 12:09 PM
I did an internet search for George Reby, the gentleman who had 22,000 dollars confiscated by the Tennessee police.
I feel badly for him, but I don't. Sorry, dude, but you should have fought harder. You should have taken the case to a federal court, where this clear violation of due process would have likely been struck down.
Patrick at October 31, 2013 1:25 PM
So evidently it's George's fault for not fighting harder, not the authorities' for taking his money.
About the cigarettes mentioned above: there is legislation in NYC to make cigarettes $10/pack and restrict the sale to those 21 and over.
There you go. No crime will occur in the pursuit of this legal drug. Because it's legal, you see.
Radwaste at October 31, 2013 2:34 PM
Patrick, he fought to get his money back. He filed an appeal and after the news station started questioning the officer about his sworn affidavit, George receieved a check. Of course he had to agree to not sue, which by the way is extortion, so hopefully he sues them on an extortion claim. I'm not sure about you Patrick, but I certainly can't afford to lose $20k, and obviously neither could George, which is why he went about getting his money returned ASAP.
sara at October 31, 2013 4:44 PM
I did an internet search for George Reby, the gentleman who had 22,000 dollars confiscated by the Tennessee police.
I feel badly for him, but I don't. Sorry, dude, but you should have fought harder. You should have taken the case to a federal court, where this clear violation of due process would have likely been struck down.
Posted by: Patrick at October 31, 2013 1:25 PM
It is harder to get into Federal court than you think it is. They spend a couple of semesters in law school teaching you about jurisdiction and venue. At one time there had to be at least 50k worth of claims, and due process is shaky because state due process is not the same as federal due process, and there is also a difference between procedural and substantive due process.
Generally if you have to go to court at all over an amount of money this small, you have already lost. The police are counting on this.
Isab at October 31, 2013 6:19 PM
So the usa is no different from other countries then....I guess police are goons everywhere
Redrajesh at October 31, 2013 6:46 PM
Sara, I'm aware he got his money back. And it took him four years to do it.
I just feel very strongly that something like this, a state blatantly enacting laws that violate your rights to due process, needs a person to do more than just argue with the state.
The state will not change its unconstitutional law merely because one person decided to persist until they coughed up and gave it back to him. They'll simply give it back and go prey on someone else who won't be quite as stubborn.
That law needs to be struck down. I don't know if Federal Court can assign fines and penalties to a state, but if they could, they should.
Patrick at October 31, 2013 7:00 PM
The problem is that there are similar federal laws born out of the "War on Drugs" that the DEA, BATFE, and FBI all use.
The way it works is that the LEO seizes whatever property and files a case against the property. As in "Illinois v. $23,601" or "Florida v. Mahindra Max25 Tractor" or "Mississippi v. 2007 Cadillac". Not the owner.
So then the owner has to get legal counsel, at their own expense because the item can't ask for legal counsel. Then the owner has to establish that he owned the "defendant". The next step is to prove that the owner was never involved with any drug dealings. So the owner has to prove a negative. Then the property is subject to an administrative review to have it cleared. They send the admin review to the property, not the owner.
The LEO and prosecutorial forces have worked to make the system as arcane, deceptive, and clouded as possible.
And none of this is reimbursable to the owner because it was originally filed against an item.
So saying "That law needs to be struck down." is just a totally naive response.
Jim P. at October 31, 2013 9:06 PM
If you say so, Jim. And while I don't have the facts to disprove you, my B.S. detector just acted up.
As for it being naive, not so naive as the chronic complaints about the TSA that are blogged about sometimes twice a day around here.
Naive or not, it is something that needs to happen.
I find it very odd that the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott (as a black man) had no right to sue in the first place (and took his case nonetheless) since he was not and could not be a citizen, but is powerless to declare that inanimate objects can't be sued.
And the Supreme Court has struck down state constitutional provisions in the past. Off the top of my head, there is Cummings v. Missouri, in which the Court ruled that an oath required by the state of Missouri's Constitution met the common law definition of both bill of attainder and ex post facto law, and therefore were ordered removed.
Patrick at November 1, 2013 2:27 AM
"I just feel very strongly that something like this, a state blatantly enacting laws that violate your rights to due process, needs a person to do more than just argue with the state."
"And while I don't have the facts to disprove you, my B.S. detector just acted up."
In view of this vs. your implied (not stated, because taking a side would just be absurd, even in recognition of the Lemual Penn case, wouldn't it) position on TSA action, your detector doesn't really work. It just has a "somebody else posted" setting.
Radwaste at November 1, 2013 5:58 AM
Did you even try to google it? How about this story?
Jim P. at November 1, 2013 2:20 PM
If the state or fed can file a claim against an inanimate object, can a citizen?
If a citizen can not wouldnt hat be a violation of the equal protection clause?
Of course this problem would go away if everyone it happened to was just willing to kill the cops involved.
And were it not illegal to do so I would advocate such a course of action
lujlp at November 1, 2013 3:38 PM
If the state or fed can file a claim against an inanimate object, can a citizen?
If a citizen can not wouldnt hat be a violation of the equal protection clause?
Well yes, in theory, under property law you have a case in replevin, I believe, but your biggest problem going up against the state or the feds, is "the government" has sovereign immunity, and a bad faith claim, which might breech sovereign immunity, is a hard case to prove. It will also cost you way more than 25k to get it to court.
Isab at November 1, 2013 4:55 PM
Ahh, but there is the rub, if you file a claim against property owned by the governemnt you haven actually filed against the governemnt itself.
And for the governemnt to claim otherwise would
set precedent to invalidate any such claims they make in the future against citizens. Right?
lujlp at November 1, 2013 11:56 PM
Leave a comment