Civil Asset Forfiture

12357

Replies

  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Gene is right. He just didn't expand on the topic much. But no one is listening to him, so why should he bother typing stuff no one is reading?

    Exigencies generally mean an officer doesn't have time to get a warrant...

    Suspect burning/flushing/defacing/ruining evidence in plain view...

    Smell of cannabis in a vehicle or on someone's person...

    Plain noises indicating a violent or forcible felony is occurring...

    Those sorts of things.

    So "your" perception of marijuana usage is enough to confiscate all property, heh?

    You wouldn't have any problem with the local constabulary seizing every bit of your property when you're out of town and they think you might be up to no good, right?
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Smell of cannabis in a vehicle or on someone's person...
    I would be curious of the success rate when this is used to justify a search. How often is this cited as reasonable suspicion, and no evidence of drugs are found? How often is the smell of alcohol used to justify a sobriety test, and no blood alcohol is detected? I asked my buddy once about how he was able to search vehicles he wanted to search, his response was you would be surprised how many cars smell like pot. This was said with a wink and a smile. He is a former officer for a major metropolitan police force.
    Just curious
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    Lance wrote: »
    So "your" perception of marijuana usage is enough to confiscate all property, heh?

    You wouldn't have any problem with the local constabulary seizing every bit of your property when you're out of town and they think you might be up to no good, right?

    If I can smell it in the car, I can search your car. If I find a copious amount (read: a big felony amount) then I may request an asset forfeiture of the car.

    No "perception" about it. Direct observation.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    I would be curious of the success rate when this is used to justify a search. How often is this cited as reasonable suspicion, and no evidence of drugs are found? How often is the smell of alcohol used to justify a sobriety test, and no blood alcohol is detected? I asked my buddy once about how he was able to search vehicles he wanted to search, his response was you would be surprised how many cars smell like pot. This was said with a wink and a smile. He is a former officer for a major metropolitan police force.
    Just curious

    I have NEVER ONCE searched a car from probable cause by plain smell and NOT found one of the following:

    1. Personal amount of weed (1 to 19 grams, misdemeanor)
    2. Felony amount of weed (20+ grams)
    3. Copious felony amount (1pound+)
    4. Roach/blunt
    5. Shake (crumbled, dry leaves of cannabis)
    6. Paraphernalia (pipes, bags that contained weed, etc)
    Or...
    7. Occupant(s) admit to having smoked it in the car within last 2 days.

    And it sounds like your buddy is a tool. I am not ruining a case because I lied to gain access to a car.

    It's smell is distinctive and not easily masked.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    Don't go 'round hauling a fat bag of organic oregano in a ziplock bag...........Word...........:tooth:
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Jason. I hope you didn't take that to be directed at you. If you did that was not my intent, and I should have been more clear. My friend may be a tool, but I got the impression it was common practice for the department as a whole. I have also seen it happen on the show Cops, and at least one other show like Cops. You may not have done it, but it is clearly done.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Gene is right. He just didn't expand on the topic much. But no one is listening to him, so why should he bother typing stuff no one is reading?

    Exigencies generally mean an officer doesn't have time to get a warrant...

    Suspect burning/flushing/defacing/ruining evidence in plain view...

    Smell of cannabis in a vehicle or on someone's person...

    Plain noises indicating a violent or forcible felony is occurring...

    Those sorts of things.

    You failed, you have mixed up probable cause with exigent circumstances, 2 different topics, Gene was wrong because of the former list of reasons which I will not repeat.

    Smell of drugs, pot etc is probable cause, cries for help or fire are exigent circumstances, you need probable cause to investigate or canvass or detain, or search, unless exigent circumstances require an immediate action, even then, there are specific limitations as to search or "finding" contraband or discovery of evidence of illegal activities and how evidence is placed, locations etc... reasonable to the indicated emergency and a judge determines if the evidence is admissible based on the individual circumstances.....

    Exigent circumstances as such have nothing to do with the time required to obtain a search warrant and per say nothing to do directly with search & seizure at all and should not be misconstrued as tool to facilitate illegal warrantless searches.

    Any search & seizure resulting from exigent circumstances must pass a test proving legitimacy of exigence, and discovery of evil intent secondary to the emergency, and not the primary cause, else the entire case be dismissed as inadmissible or fruit of the poisonous tree due to the condition of violation of civil rights.

    Neither of you knows squat about the applicable laws of search and seizure to pass a legitimate Sergeants exam. ....
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    You failed, you have mixed up probable cause with exigent circumstances, 2 different topics, Gene was wrong because of the former listed reasons which I will not repeat.

    Smell of drugs, pot etc is probable cause, cries for help or fire are exigent circumstances, you need a reason or probable cause to canvass or detain, or search, unless exigent circumstances require an immediate entry, even then, there are specific limitations as to " finding" contraband or illegal activities and how these are placed etc... reasonable to the indicated emergency and a judge determines if the evidence is admissible based on the individual circumstances.....

    Neither of you light brights knows squat about the applicable laws of search and seizure to pass a legitimate Sergeants exam. ....


    I'm not seeing how we "light brights" have it wrong.

    I do see how you are a condescending ignoramus.

    Wikipedia.org "Exigent Circumstances":

    "Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified, which include clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

    Man, that pesky "probable cause" phrase keeps popping up. ..

    From law.cornell.edu:

    "Exigent circumstances are exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant."

    Damn, there is it again...

    Exigencies don't GIVE you probable cause. You ALREADY HAVE IT based on your knowledge and/or observations and are permitted to ACT WITHOUT WARRANT IN HAND to prevent destruction of evidence, protect a scene, etc etc.

    Where's that Sergeant exam?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    I'll add that "cries for help" complicate this conversation. Medical exigency is not the same as legal exigent circumstances.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I'm not seeing how we "light brights" have it wrong.

    I do see how you are a condescending ignoramus.

    Wikipedia.org "Exigent Circumstances":

    "Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified, which include clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

    Man, that pesky "probable cause" phrase keeps popping up. ..

    From law.cornell.edu:

    "Exigent circumstances are exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant."

    Damn, there is it again...

    Exigencies don't GIVE you probable cause. You ALREADY HAVE IT based on your knowledge and/or observations and are permitted to ACT WITHOUT WARRANT IN HAND to prevent destruction of evidence, protect a scene, etc etc.

    Where's that Sergeant exam?

    He's a condescending ignoramus?

    He certainly doesn't come across nearly as "badge-heavy" as you or your colleague Gene.

    Frankly, some of the attitudes and opinions you've expressed here are some of the best arguments I've heard to start busting police unions.

    I wouldn't start spending those pension checks before they arrive.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    You just can't justify every warrantless S&S with the blanket reason of exigent circumstances of any kind in these here United States of America, with I heard cries for help etc.....

    Stand in front of a Judge and a good lawyer for the defense with a case based merely on hard to prove "exigent circumstances" and see how long it takes for a Judge to throw the case out for a violation of the plaintiff's civil rights, in NYS anyway.

    I don't need to Google or Wikipedia legal stuff either, I simply remember the complex legal guidelines we had for preparation of investigations and operations leading to successful convictions and administrative rules we were guided by in accordance to applicable laws of juris prudence.

    Also, every case was / is different and handled differently, and above everything else, I respected peoples civil rights above all else, rather than mold the facts around a case in order to make a conviction.

    It was a constant dynamic study of law and balance of administrative rules and constant communication with Superiors and the D.A.s office as to how each individual case should be handled.

    But tee hee, what do I know ?
    I is a simple ingnoramus hypothetical hypopotimus ! !
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    Lance wrote: »
    He's a condescending ignoramus?

    He certainly doesn't come across nearly as "badge-heavy" as you or your colleague Gene.

    Frankly, some of the attitudes and opinions you've expressed here are some of the best arguments I've heard to start busting police unions.

    I wouldn't start spending those pension checks before they arrive.

    Police unions have what to do with this conversation? :uhm:

    Explain "badge heavy"? We're defending/debating a knowledge base we've gained through training, academics, work practice of law enforcement and overall professional experience. This is no different than two carpenters arguing about the best way to install cabinets.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    You just can't justify every warrantless S&S in these here United States of America, with I heard cries for help etc..... I don't need to Google stuff either, I simply remember the complex guidelines we had for preparation of investigations and operations leading to successful convictions and administrative rules we were guided by in accordance to applicable laws of juris prudence.

    Now you're changing the focus of the debate. When did I ever say exigent circumstance was used, or attempted to be used, to justify all S&S cases in the US?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    You never did, I was only clarifying a valid point,
    In all fairness you are quite competent, I simply had a much harder time in JTF because we had to satisfy everyone's pet agenda and make various agencies happy, from the FEDs to every branch on the LE tree....even Interpol etc..... It would have been much simpler working for one LE agency......
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,659 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Don't go 'round hauling a fat bag of organic oregano in a ziplock bag...........Word...........:tooth:
    Or as I found out once on a trip to Canada, don't cross the boarder in your mom's car when she carries powdered coffee creamer in a zip lock bag in the glove compartment...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    Or as I found out once on a trip to Canada, don't cross the boarder in your mom's car when she carries powdered coffee creamer in a zip lock bag in the glove compartment...

    Well did you say...................Coffee Mates :punch::punch: :spittingcoffee: :rotflmao:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    We can all hope. Would be amazing to see the more libertarian wing of the Republican party finally start to assert itself. This seems like a fairly easy issue for them to score some points on fairly popular bipartisan legislation.

    Both of those Senators and all three Congressmen will bring all that to bare.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I have a problem with this.
    Sumdood has a pound of pot. What's the justification in taking his car? Honest question, not ball busting.

    And don't bother arguing with the good Dr cop, paramedic, chef, firemen, mechanic, trainer of all law enforcement Who. You won't get anywhere.

    The justification is statutory.

    Technically in Florida (and several if not most states) your vehicle can be seized and a forfeiture petitioned if the vehicle is used as an instrument of a felony crime. In the case of a pound of cannabis, that instrumentality was it's use to deliver the drugs.

    Money can be seized as well if it is the fruit of felonious endeavors.

    Other real property can be seized and potentially forfeited if used as the same in the vehicle example. If a home is used to knowing harbor kidnapping victims or is used to process meth or grow cannabis, an asset forfeiture can be petitioned.

    I, myself, don't generally bother with seizing property unless there is some good ethical cause to do it.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Technicality, I guess. Pots in the car, that makes the car "guilty". Regarding the large sums of cash, I imagine its an issue of the court can't prove it was from doing naughty things, and you can't prove it's not.
    That don't confront me though, I don't carry around pounds of pot.

    There are a lot of circumstances taken into account before any seized assets are forfeited to a department general fund.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,936 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Technicality, I guess. Pots in the car, that makes the car "guilty". Regarding the large sums of cash, I imagine its an issue of the court can't prove it was from doing naughty things, and you can't prove it's not.
    That don't confront me though, I don't carry around pounds of pot.

    This is not unlike the Game Warden taking your truck, boat, trailer, shotgun, decoys,etc when you're 12 geese over the limit....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,936 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    And that's BS as well.

    Yeah yeah, you don't break the rules, you don't pay the consequences. Which I won't ever have to worry about, but it's still BS.

    Well....when you bust the same guys for the same thing for the 4th time in a row and it's apparent that paying a fine isn't a big deal...it's time to send a message
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,265 Senior Member
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,336 Senior Member
    It's all good- - - - -they probably "smelled dope"! (their own armpits)
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    I can certainly understand, and even admire esprit de corp. What I can not understand is the willful ignorance demonstrated on this matter. You might be the most honorable officer ever, working for the most honorable department in history, but not being able to recognize the potential for abuse, and blatant abuse, of these laws is outside of my understanding for an intelligent man. Wake the hell up, and quit circling the wagons around thieves.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I said it before, I will say it again and be perfectly clear, many folks are Pollyanna holier than thou, until they get jammed up, and ruptured, you give a friend a ride, a bag of heroin falls out of their pocket, and you consent to a search, and walla ! that bag of dope gets found, and you get charged for possession.......

    All this asset forfeiture is great fun, until it happens to you or someone you love, people get framed too, time was confidential informants would plant a load of dope in your car then call their handler and accuse you of being a dealer in order to score some major points.....

    Civil rights mainly protect the innocent or falsely accused, do not be deceived.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Police unions have what to do with this conversation? :uhm:

    Explain "badge heavy"? We're defending/debating a knowledge base we've gained through training, academics, work practice of law enforcement and overall professional experience. This is no different than two carpenters arguing about the best way to install cabinets.


    "Badge heavy" is a term I've heard the cops in my family use to describe guys who tend abuse their authority, ignore procedure/training, wear their uniforms to private gigs in different cities/counties half-way across the state, etc.

    I retract my comment on police unions. When/if this country allows privatized police forces that's almost the last stop towards 99.9% of us being slaves. I've just always found it strange that most of the same people who bitch about public unions never bring up the PD.

    IMO if you guys just quit circling the wagons around the rotten apples most of this criticism goes away.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Sadly stuff like this is self perpetuating and does not simply "go away" that is a libtard's wet dream, if I pretend real hard, maybe it will just go away somehow.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    Lance wrote: »
    "Badge heavy" is a term I've heard the cops in my family use to describe guys who tend abuse their authority, ignore procedure/training, wear their uniforms to private gigs in different cities/counties half-way across the state, etc.

    So by referring to us as badge heavy, by your own personal understanding of its meaning, you infer we are that way?

    Unions have nothing to do with how the government puppeteers their police departments. If anything, it helps limit government heavy-handed-ness. At least here it does.

    I live in the south. We don't have massive nepotistic police unions that operate like mafia like in NYC and Philly, etc.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    So by referring to us as badge heavy, by your own personal understanding of its meaning, you infer we are that way?

    Unions have nothing to do with how the government puppeteers their police departments. If anything, it helps limit government heavy-handed-ness. At least here it does.

    I live in the south. We don't have massive nepotistic police unions that operate like mafia like in NYC and Philly, etc.


    I take back everything I said. Please tell me what PD union you're part of, so I can vote for someone to bust it.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.