"Policing For Profit" Allows Municipalities To Seize Your Cash
Law prof Jonathan Turley writes about a disgusting cash seizure by cops -- a stripper carrying more than a million dollars in cash in her car to go buy a nightclub:
We have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called "policing for profit" and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business.That was before it was seized Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back.
Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).
...I am unclear of why the Justice Department gets away with dragging on such litigation without a factual basis for the allegation of a drug transaction. They put this woman through years of litigation and, even under the exceptionally generous rules and standards for seizure, could not make a case for treating the money as drug money.
Um... I've bought and sold property and never had that much cash on me. My eyebrows are raised. Sounds like tax evasion. It is suspicious behavior.
NicoleK at July 25, 2013 7:48 AM
I can understand her not using a bank and keeping her stripping proceeds in her home, but if I was going to carry around that much cash in my car, I would use some of it to hire a lawyer and an armed bodyguard to accompany me.
Fayd at July 25, 2013 7:54 AM
Another thing that I might add is that a probable reason this got dragged out so long is because the municipality went ahead and spent the money before any kind of ruling was reached.
Fayd at July 25, 2013 7:58 AM
Whatever the reasons for having large amounts of cash in your car, you should not have to prove that it is legitimate income or that the taxes are paid on it.
The government should have to prove that it is not.
With crazy shit going on like this in the country, is it any wonder that people have the standards for civil and criminal guilt so ass backwards?
Lesson 2. "Never" let them search your car. Make them get a warrant.
Isab at July 25, 2013 9:22 AM
They should be forced to return the money, with interest, plus pay her legal bills, otherwise it just sets up coercive situations where money can be held onto forever, and people that can't afford an attorney are put at an enormous disadvantage.
jerry at July 25, 2013 9:25 AM
The thing about this case is it was just a big amount involved, but it didn't overturn any laws. The law will remain as fucked up as it always has been.
You could be stopped for just about any reason. If the cop can find a reason to search and finds a few seeds can seize the vehicle and any cash you have on you.
But if it's $500 cash and a the car is only worth $2K you have to go to court with a lawyer that is going to probably cost you a minimum of $1K until they drag it out.
Take a guess what, you probably aren't going to bother.
Jim P. at July 25, 2013 9:39 AM
The only comment I can add is that this isn't a new thing. It's been going on since the '80s at least. Remember the premise of Miami Vice? All that bling Crockett and Tubbs had was stuff that was seized.
Cousin Dave at July 25, 2013 9:44 AM
I would advocate just killing the cops and lawyers and legislators and judges who are party to such injustices if doing so werent illegal
lujlp at July 25, 2013 11:07 AM
"...the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back."
What right does the Obama Administration have to try to deny her this? Are they working at the decree of the King?
Justin at July 25, 2013 12:44 PM
Amy, I'm so glad you're fighting for the constitution. Obama is taking Dubya's nonsense to a whole new level. Disgusting as that is, it's encouraging that the media and public opinion are calling BS.
DaveG at July 25, 2013 1:31 PM
"It is suspicious behavior."
Congratulations. You just fed the trolls that assume guilt on the part of every citizen.
Including yourself.
Take off your shoes and submit to this patdown without protest. Not doing so is suspicious behavior.
Radwaste at July 25, 2013 2:45 PM
"It is suspicious behavior."
Well, I have never posted online that I have purchased property using a different method than cash; I find your behavior suspicious, and will suggest to the NSA and IRS and FBI that you could be a terrorist or, god forbid, scofflaw and ne'er-do-well.
The punishment is forfeiture of all assets and twenty years in prison with nothing to read but "Mein Kampf", "Atlas Shrugged", and "Everybody Poops".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 25, 2013 5:38 PM
What a useless news...no photos of the woman involved?
Redrajesh at July 25, 2013 11:22 PM
Um... I've bought and sold property and never had that much cash on me. My eyebrows are raised. Sounds like tax evasion. It is suspicious behavior.
Really?
How about the case of the fellow carrying about $22,000, and having that seized? Here's your link.
Is the fact that I rarely if ever use my credit card to make entertainment purchases (meals, movies, trips to the bar) suspicious because I pay cash for those items?
At which point is paying cash prima facie evidence of criminal behaviour? how much cash is suspicious? I know of a fellow who will walk into a car dealership with a brief case, make a deal, and then pay for the car in cash from that brief case. Is that suspicious?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 26, 2013 8:10 AM
Good Lord, Nicole, who cares what you think it "sounds like"? Get some proof and a warrant or leave the woman and her money alone. That's the whole point of this case.
What I found odd is Turley's statement that he's "confused" and "unclear" as to why the government is fighting this one. Well, he writes about this pretty often, so I suspect he's not really unclear: they can't afford the precedent. If they lose one, it undermines (I devoutly hope) the whole unconstitutional house of cards and the confiscation cops can go back to funding their departments the old-fashoined way, by begging the legislature for it.
Grey Ghost at July 26, 2013 8:13 AM
The problem is as I outlined above is that to get your $5K back is going to cost at least $1K and many months. The closest was Alvarez v. Smith but the defendants "gave up". But when Justice Stevens is against it, you know it has a chance. But the "large" cases never make it to SCOTUS and the "small" cases are never challenged.
And do we really think the "War on Drugs" is a good thing?
Jim P. at July 27, 2013 6:52 AM
Well, now lets think about this.
If government agencies can file suit against inanimate objects, why cant citizens?
lujlp at July 27, 2013 1:09 PM
Leave a comment