Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions w/ local, state police

My point is, at least he was arrested and charged...as opposed to other seizures where there no arrest occurred and no charges were filed yet the money/assets are still seized. He was, on some level, violating the law which led to the seizure. (More than 20 grams of pot is felony possession in FL. He had 300+ on him).

Just saying he's not the shining example of the "innocent citizen" falling afoul of bad forfeiture laws we've often heard about.

I think the forfeiture/seizure laws are wrong and I'm pretty sure there are better examples out there than a pothead pro football player to help the cause.

SMS said:

My point is, at least he was arrested and charged...as opposed to other seizures where there no arrest occurred and no charges were filed yet the money/assets are still seized. He was, on some level, violating the law which led to the seizure. (More than 20 grams of pot is felony possession in FL. He had 300+ on him).

Just saying he's not the shining example of the "innocent citizen" falling afoul of bad forfeiture laws we've often heard about.

I think the forfeiture/seizure laws are wrong and I'm pretty sure there are better examples out there than a pothead pro football player to help the cause.

Click to expand...

totally disagree ... being arrested for pot and a legal firearm are completely different from issue of having your cash/car seized base on what LEO's suspects might happen? for all we know Guion grew up in said crime ridden neighborhood and was making a trip back to deliver cash to folks that helped him growing up.

what happened to rights of 2A and rights of 4th amendment against unreasonable search/seizure?
last I heard one is innocent until proven guilty .. seizing your assets without a conviction is assuming guilt until you prove otherwise. the burden of proof of innocence now on you and waged against an opponent with unlimited resources with the ability to add charges or drop depending how much you fight to get your assets back.

thank goodness there's a trend by a few senators to change the federal law to prohibit seizure unless there's a conviction. which still may not go far enough as there are cases of folks growing pot for medical uses where seedlings are counted as full plants. now their house and all assets are being seized for growing a few extra pot plants. keep in mind these are folks NOT making profits $$$ from selling pot. how would you like to be say a 72 year cancer patient getting ready to lose their house due to growing more pot plants (seedlings) then allowed by law? http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ritage-foundation-institute-justice/23737663/

=======

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Driller said:

I never thought I would support anything he did, either. Odd. It must be a trap!

Click to expand...

SMS said:

This has got to be a trick…LOL.

Click to expand...

It is.

There are two key exemptions: seizures as part of a joint task force, and seizures as part of a joint investigation.

On the first, any operation funded by federal grants can qualify as a "joint task force", especially if there is a formal liaison involved. On the second, all a state or local agency must do is consult for "assistance" with a federal agency.

Basically, it changes nothing.

Civil asset forfeiture bill signed into law by Gov. Susana Martinez

April 10, 2015

Gov. Susana Martinez does not like the term “policing for profit,” but she still signed into law today a measure aimed at barring law enforcement from seizing money, cars or other types of property from people on civil grounds during an arrest or traffic stop on suspicion the property was connected to a crime.

The civil asset forfeiture legislation, House Bill 560, was approved unanimously by both the New Mexico House and Senate but Martinez did not act on the measure until today, her final day to sign or veto bills passed during the 60-day session.

In an executive message explaining her decision to sign the bill, Martinez said that as a former prosecutor she understands the importance of protecting constitutional rights and innocent property owners.

http://www.abqjournal.com/567598/po...l-signed-into-law-by-gov-susana-martinez.html

Another article:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/10/breaking-new-mexico-gov-abolishes-civil-asset-forfeiture-bill/
BREAKING: New Mexico Gov Abolishes Civil Asset Forfeiture
2:18 PM 04/10/2015

Dave70968 said:

Never thought I'd say this, but bravo, Eric Holder. Civil forfeiture is a blight upon our system, unfit for a free people.

Click to expand...

Yep!!!

Police Seize $63,530 From Veteran Because He Kept It In Grocery Bags

April 21, 2015



Simply carrying a large amount of cash in a grocery sack in your car is now sufficient grounds for a police officer to seize your money, a US circuit court has ruled. A panel of the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals found that all a deputy has to do to seize cash from a person is say it is drug money.

The court refused to return the $63,530 that Deputy Dave Wintle seized from a disabled veteran named Mark A. Brewer during a traffic stop in 2011. Brewer was never charged with a crime or even given a traffic ticket. Yet the decorated Air Force veteran lost his savings when a drug-sniffing dog smelled marijuana on it, even though no cannabis was found in Brewer’s car or his home.

Brewer saved the money from disability payments and his Air Force pay — as documents deputies found in the car indicated. He said he was traveling to Los Angeles to visit his uncle and to use the money as a down payment for a house. He added he was hoping his uncle could help him get a job there.

“The record here does not make clear whether the seized currency constitutes property used to facilitate a drug offense or proceeds from a drug offense,” Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote in a March 23 opinion upholding the seizure. “For the purposes of analysis, however, we will assume that the currency facilitated a drug offense and is thus subject to [to be seized].”

It was taken through a legal mechanism called civil forfeiture.

Brewer’s ordeal began when he was driving through Douglas County, Nebraska, outside of Omaha on Interstate 680 in November 2011. Wintle, a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy, pulled him over for not signaling when he made a lane change, and then Wintle asked for permission to search the vehicle.

Keeping Cash in a Grocery Bag Can Lead to Seizure

Wintle had just run a background check on Brewer and found he had “no major violations” on his record when he had the dog search the car. The search was apparently prompted by Wintle’s discovery of $1,000 in cash in Brewer’s pocket. He then found the other money in grocery sacks in a backpack.

Wintle claimed that copies of articles in the car about making hash and weed oil constituted evidence that Brewer was a drug dealer.

“The government provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the finding of a substantial connection between the currency and drug activity,” Shepherd wrote.

Among the circumstantial evidence was:

The money was kept in plastic grocery bags in a backpack in Brewer’s trunk.
The money was bundled into batches of $1,000 that were kept together by rubber bands.
Brewer initially told Wintle that he did not have enough money to pay for a motel room and that he was sleeping at rest stops.
Wintle claimed he smelled marijuana on the backpack.
The articles.

The federal government initiated seizure against Brewer, who appealed. During a civil trial U.S. Magistrate F.A. Gossett upheld Wintle’s action. Brewer appealed that ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court. Shepherd was part of a three-judge panel that upheld Gossett’s decision.



Brewer served in the Air Force as a weapons specialist and military policeman. He was given a medical discharge after a deployment in Afghanistan in 2008, Nick Sibilla of the Institute for Justice stated in a Forbes op-ed piece. Brewer says he has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Even more tragic: The ruling will have a wide impact.

“This court case will be the ‘law of the circuit’ for Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and North and South Dakota as well, creating even more barriers for Americans to fight back against unjust seizures in court,” Sibilla wrote.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...m-veteran-because-he-kept-it-in-grocery-bags/

When I travel the Will Rogers turnpike every week, I have often wondered why there are 3 to 5 OHP sitting at the toll gate. I see them have cars pulled over just past the toll booth and have wondered what could that person possibly done while paying their toll to warrant getting pulled over before they even get put of the merge lane. Almost everyone I have seen has their trunk open and often times have their kids standing on the side of the road while the troopers have all their chit scattered on the shoulder. This has been going on for at least the last 10 years.

Now I know why. Pretty scary that they can take your money on a hunch you did something wrong without even a hint of proof or bringing charges against the person.

Seriously, though, with police doing things like this, should it be any wonder to them why the general public has a serious distrust of them? I know after watching the videos, I won't be taking cash along with me when we go on vacation anymore.

Justices Rule That Police Can’t Extend Traffic Stops

April 21, 2015

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the police may not prolong traffic stops to wait for drug-sniffing dogs to inspect vehicles.

“A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. The vote was 6 to 3.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States No. 13-9972, started when a Nebraska police officer saw a Mercury Mountaineer driven by Dennys Rodriguez veer onto the shoulder of a state highway just after midnight. The officer, Morgan Struble, performed a routine traffic stop, questioning Mr. Rodriguez and his passenger and running a records check. He then issued Mr. Rodriguez a written warning.

That completed the stop, Justice Ginsburg wrote. But Officer Struble then had his drug-sniffing dog, Floyd, circle the vehicle. Floyd smelled drugs and led his officer to a large bag of methamphetamine. About eight minutes elapsed between the written warning and Floyd’s alert.

Mr. Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence. Lower courts, relying on a 2005 Supreme Court decision that allowed drug-sniffing dog use during traffic stops, said brief prolongations of those stops to allow for such inspections did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Ginsburg, who dissented in the 2005 case, Illinois v. Caballes, said that decision had merely “tolerated certain unrelated investigations that did not lengthen the roadside detention.”

“An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” she wrote. But, she added, “he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.”

The majority sent the case back to a lower court for a determination of whether that reasonable suspicion existed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/u...g-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

_CY_ said:

Justices Rule That Police Can’t Extend Traffic Stops

April 21, 2015

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the police may not prolong traffic stops to wait for drug-sniffing dogs to inspect vehicles.

“A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. The vote was 6 to 3.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States No. 13-9972, started when a Nebraska police officer saw a Mercury Mountaineer driven by Dennys Rodriguez veer onto the shoulder of a state highway just after midnight. The officer, Morgan Struble, performed a routine traffic stop, questioning Mr. Rodriguez and his passenger and running a records check. He then issued Mr. Rodriguez a written warning.

That completed the stop, Justice Ginsburg wrote. But Officer Struble then had his drug-sniffing dog, Floyd, circle the vehicle. Floyd smelled drugs and led his officer to a large bag of methamphetamine. About eight minutes elapsed between the written warning and Floyd’s alert.

Mr. Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence. Lower courts, relying on a 2005 Supreme Court decision that allowed drug-sniffing dog use during traffic stops, said brief prolongations of those stops to allow for such inspections did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Ginsburg, who dissented in the 2005 case, Illinois v. Caballes, said that decision had merely “tolerated certain unrelated investigations that did not lengthen the roadside detention.”

“An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” she wrote. But, she added, “he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.”

The majority sent the case back to a lower court for a determination of whether that reasonable suspicion existed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/u...g-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

All they will do now is wait and issue the citation after the drug dog arrives and does his business.