Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple; Didn't Charge Them With A Crime
This is too terrible to be happening in America. But it does -- and that's because the cops never try to victimize some badass lawyer; it's always some poor kid on the train or some couple on disability who are driving to Salt Lake City from across the country so the hubby can see an ear specialist. (The latter one is the case detailed below.)
I'm talking about the euphemistically named "civil asset forfeiture," which is really legalized theft of citizens money and assets.
From an article in the Quad Cities Dispatch Argus by Rachel Warmke, "authorities used civil forfeiture laws to confiscate the couple's property without filing charges, under the assumption the money and vehicle were tied to illegal activity."
Under the assumption?
Hello? Aren't we supposed to be running this place (this country) on "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty when assumed guilty"?
More from Warmke's piece:
Mr. Perry said he and his wife should not be required to prove their innocence in the civil case."This is not Nazi Germany where you can treat people like this," he wrote.
The letter also states that the couple is disabled and have previously tried, unsuccessfully, to have prosecutors return their "only vehicle" and personal effects, such as Mrs. Perry's wedding rings.
"I even begged and said please just give me my truck back and you can keep the money and ill (sic) walk away from it. Still denied," Mr. Perry wrote. "You don't understand the emotional, physical and financial terrorism you have caused."
The couple is representing themselves (typically a terrible fucking idea).
Institute for Justice's Nick Sibilla writes about the hell that they are going through:
A Massachusetts couple has been fighting for three years to regain cash they say was wrongfully seized from them. In October 2012, the Illinois State Police pulled over Adam and Jennifer Perry for speeding as they were driving through Henry County on Interstate 80. The Perrys said they were headed to Salt Lake City, Utah to see a hearing specialist for an ear infection Adam was suffering from.A drug dog sniffed and indicated on the car. Officers then searched the vehicle and found $107,520 in cash in a suitcase and in Jennifer's wallet. The Perrys claimed the search was without their consent and without a warrant. According to the officers, they also found a duffel bag that reportedly smelled of marijuana.
No drugs were found in the car, nor did the government file criminal charges against the Perrys. Nevertheless, officers seized the cash and eventually transferred it to the federal government.
Check out how sick this is, from one of the court papers:
The Perrys' Claim fails to identify the specific property they seek; their most specific reference is their request for return of "all currency, vehicle and property." Claim 3. The Claim also does not state the nature of the Perrys' interest in the currency in dispute. The Government's special interrogatories sought to obtain these details, which are necessary for determining the Perrys' entitlement to the money.
Their "entitlement" to the money?
Consider this: A police officer stops you, pulls your wallet out of your pants, and tells you that you have to prove the money in it is yours or he's taking it all.
Good fucking luck with that.
This is the America we're now living in -- one in which a couple had their home seized by the state because their son sold $40 worth of drugs outside of it. Luckily, after the Institute for Justice took their case, they were able to keep their home. Their home!
Oh, and P.S., regarding the Perrys' case: Lots of money has drugs all over it.
And also, despite the laws, what you put in your body is none of the government's business, and whether you sell plants or powder to other Americans sure shouldn't be.
And finally, property rights are foundational to a democracy. The fact that property rights have eroded to this degree -- along with our free speech rights and other rights -- does not bode well for civil liberties in our country's future.
via @Mark_J_Perry
"And also, despite the laws, what you put in your body is none of the government's business, and whether you sell plants or powder to other Americans sure shouldn't be."
So, you have no idea about invasive species, as well as no intention of either seeing that probate laws are enabled or seeing that commercial interests aren't set up to kill you by accident. You can tell if there's RoundUp in your arugula, and whether the "powder" you mention is Vitamin B, bicarbonate of soda or Chlordane™.
Genius!
Radwaste at December 28, 2015 12:44 AM
uhh believe he was talking about marijuana, radwaste lad
larry kin at December 28, 2015 3:48 AM
Correct, larry kin, but make that "she."
Those are my words about what you put in your body.
You can tell if there's RoundUp in your arugula, and whether the "powder" you mention is Vitamin B, bicarbonate of soda or Chlordane™.
Drug sellers with impure drugs aren't going to get much repeat business.
And regulation hasn't stopped Chipotle from rather regularly sickening people, now has it?
http://www.businessinsider.com/chipotles-sales-decline-is-just-beginning-2015-12
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2015 5:08 AM
I think that it's fair to say that CAF is being abused and should be reserved for penalties arising from a guilty verdict and demonstration that the assets were procured through the fruits of criminal activity.
That said, these two were probably up to something, or they're really really dumb, or both.
mimi at December 28, 2015 7:36 AM
I'm with Radwaste - you lose credibility with "Despite the laws..." So you'll throw Chipotle under the bus in order to defend Monsanto? Brilliant...
Ski at December 28, 2015 8:23 AM
@ mimi, who wrote:
"That said, these two were probably up to something, or they're really really dumb, or both."
Probably up to something? You sound like a police officer :-) No, but seriously, we don't punish people by confiscating their stuff because they were 'probably' up to 'something'. We charge them with a crime, and try them in a court, and if they're found guilty, THEN we get to take their stuff. Not on the basis that some police officer standing by the side of the road decides that he thinks they're 'up to something'.
This doesn't have anything to do with guilt or innocence of any crime, of course. They committed the mistake of 'possessing large amounts of easily-negotiable assets', which is now effectively punishable as though it were a crime, with no meaningful process whatever.
'Really dumb' is not a crime. The police are supposed to protect the 'really dumb' from armed predators taking their stuff - not BE the armed predators.
CAF is now easily one of the most-abused law-enforcement activities in the nation. Don't believe me? Just read the analysis performed by (some Nashville newspaper) which clearly showed the imbalances in seizure actions when it cam to drug trafficking - virtually-all seizures were of cash leaving the city, where the cash was seized under CAF, although there was no evidence of any crime. The police were quite happy to let drugs flow unchecked into the city, because seizing drugs does not enrich anyone's budget. They reserved all their efforts for seizing the resulting cash as it was leaving - which does flow directly into their budgets. Such perverse incentives are almost tailor-made for this kind of corruption of law enforcement activity.
llater,
llamas
llamas at December 28, 2015 9:07 AM
"Drug sellers with impure drugs aren't going to get much repeat business."
You just cited a clandestine industry with no reporting standards whatsoever, and admitted problems with controlling the content of their product. Yep, this is totally OK.
"And regulation hasn't stopped Chipotle from rather regularly sickening people, now has it?"
Now you repeat that old standard, that because somebody failed of their inspection routines, nobody should be inspecting their product.
You just cited the perfect example for ME, in that Chipotle's confidence that locally-sourced raw foods that they could advertise as "organic" and "natural" blew up in their face from their LACK of diligence!
You've taken the position that you can tell if a product for sale is OK. What makes your judgment superior to those making decisions at Chipotle?
Go ahead and tell the those people their suffering is OK, that inspection and food handling standards are useless. Your position also removes incentive and penalties, should a business injure someone with their product. Hurt? Good thing you have Obamacare! (What?)
So much for the "science-based" blog.
One more time:
Government inspections are only part of the story. Standards, establishing safe practices, produces the handling methods which provide your consumer protections.
Standards work to produce the safe environment you now enjoy. That's something you can actually see in place today. It is NOT a logical deduction or fantasy!
Proper inspections only determine if the standards are being followed. You are arguing that because some inspections are ineffective, the idea of inspection is worthless. That is blatantly false, and this would be easily apparent if you applied the concept to anything else. How about this one: "Some police are ineffective, so there shouldn't be any police."
Carry this further: you should not have to vaccinate your kids (you can't tell if the people around you have communicable viruses). The counter help at McDonald's should not have to wash their hands (you won't know, and you can't tell if their hands are actually clean). Nobody should tell you if their hot sauce has MSG in it (you can't tell unless they disclose that). UL shouldn't check the construction of your microwave - if it shocks you, you'll survive to turn it back in for another one (also without an inspection sticker).
Here's one you'll appreciate: you should cheerfully step into the Rapiscan 1000, because it obviously isn't harmful.
What? All of a sudden you clamor for testing? Why?
I have a suggestion: you can't process the abstraction of prevention.
Radwaste at December 28, 2015 10:47 AM
we don't punish people by confiscating their stuff because they were 'probably' up to 'something'. We charge them with a crime, and try them in a court, and if they're found guilty, THEN we get to take their stuff
Actually, not even then. Only if the "stuff" is tied to the crime. If you rob someone, the government is within its rights to confiscate enough property to return the amount you stole. That's it.
Of course, the court can assess a fine, but that then becomes a bill you have to pay. It is not an excuse to steal your property.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work.
a_random_guy at December 28, 2015 11:18 AM
When the lawyer and judge's homes are seized because their kids are doing crack pigs will fly.
Bob in Texas at December 28, 2015 11:26 AM
The police are supposed to protect the 'really dumb' from armed predators taking their stuff - not BE the armed predators.
-llamas
________________________________________
If only more people sympathized with the "really dumb" that way...
Especially when it comes to the PARENTS of young predators, since heaven forbid that any parents should have to take a cynical view of their own children and actually make sure they're being SUPERVISED enough not to be committing one crime or another out of sheer boredom, greed or lack of empathy. (This applies to cold-blooded teens as well as to five-year-old would-be shoplifters.)
lenona at December 28, 2015 1:51 PM
"Now you repeat that old standard, that because somebody failed of their inspection routines, nobody should be inspecting their product."
I think the point is, the phrase "government inspected" isn't very meaningful in an age where government is generally corrupt. It's pretty clear at this point that Chipotle has been allowed to slide by a lot of health authorities because of their political correctness (and possibly strategic campaign donations, although I'll have to look into that). Government inspection worked pretty well half a century ago, when government was filled with a lot of "good government" types who stayed out of politics and just did their jobs. That age has passed, and it won't come back until the size and authority of government are cut down substantially, so that government work is no longer attractive to narcissists and power-trippers.
So the question is, what will work? Could a privately owned inspection agency do the job? Yes, there would be temptations of corruption and laziness. But those would be tempered by the need for the agency to maintain its public reputation and hence its profits (things that are not a consideration for government). I'm with Raddy here in that I would be unlikely to walk into a restaurant that has no kind of certification at all, unless I had good knowledge of the owners and staff. Could I trust a private certification authority? Perhaps. And doing it privately would let restaurants decide whether they want to get a certification or not, depending on what they think would be best for their business. That avoids the legal hairsplitting where the government is going after bake sales and private parties because it can't decide if they meet the definition of "food servers" or not.
Note that in many jurisdictions, government-owned or operated food services (e.g., school cafeterias) are either exempt from certification, or the certification is a paper formality not involving an inspection. Are those more or less trustworthy than privately owned restaurants? I've seen some cafeterias in government facilities that I declined to eat in.
Cousin Dave at December 30, 2015 7:12 AM
I know for a fact if I ran a lab the same way NASA runs their's OSHA would chain my doors shut. They sure haven't chained NASA's doors. Same with the EPA.
Ben at December 30, 2015 2:46 PM
And finally, property rights are foundational to a democracy. The fact that property rights have eroded to this degree -- along with our free speech rights and other rights -- does not bode well for civil liberties in our country's future.
Property rights are foundational to liberty, because without these rights, you are subject to the whims of other people. They're not foundational to democracy, since they can be taken away by a majority vote, and democracy would still exist afterwards.
mpetrie98 at December 30, 2015 8:48 PM
And thank Heavens for constitutional republican forms of government, which make it difficult or almost impossible to violate property rights with a simple majority vote.
mpetrie98 at December 30, 2015 8:49 PM
Leave a comment