Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 1503542" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Zombie: there's nothing illegal about carrying cash. We see cases--<em>lots</em> of cases--in which people are carrying cash and it is seized on the theory that it must've been the product of something illegal, despite a lack of evidence (see also: Tenaha, TX, though it's just the most egregious). By shifting the burden of proof to the legitimate owner to prove his innocence, civil forfeiture subverts the presumption of innocence. Again, I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't lose their stuff, just that the government should have to first prove that they are, in fact, criminals.</p><p></p><p>And no, having a drug dog alert on your wallet isn't proof of a crime. Upwards of 90% of banknotes currently in circulation have detectable amounts of cocaine on them; if you want to make an alert sufficient, we'll start with your wallet and then move to your wife's. (This ignores the tremendous error rate of dogs, which in some studies has been as high as several hundred hits on known-clean objects; that is, every positive was a false-positive.) Proof is the result of a trial and conviction, not an officer's hunch, belief, or ability to fill out arrest or seizure paperwork.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 1503542, member: 13624"] Zombie: there's nothing illegal about carrying cash. We see cases--[I]lots[/I] of cases--in which people are carrying cash and it is seized on the theory that it must've been the product of something illegal, despite a lack of evidence (see also: Tenaha, TX, though it's just the most egregious). By shifting the burden of proof to the legitimate owner to prove his innocence, civil forfeiture subverts the presumption of innocence. Again, I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't lose their stuff, just that the government should have to first prove that they are, in fact, criminals. And no, having a drug dog alert on your wallet isn't proof of a crime. Upwards of 90% of banknotes currently in circulation have detectable amounts of cocaine on them; if you want to make an alert sufficient, we'll start with your wallet and then move to your wife's. (This ignores the tremendous error rate of dogs, which in some studies has been as high as several hundred hits on known-clean objects; that is, every positive was a false-positive.) Proof is the result of a trial and conviction, not an officer's hunch, belief, or ability to fill out arrest or seizure paperwork. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom