Civil Forfeiture (Jackson, Niota: fit in, lawyer, purchase)

[donsabi]

Civil Forfeiture Highway Shakedowns in Tennessee - YouTube

[DubbleT]

Hardly unique to TN

Policing for profit
Civil forfeiture laws: rating by state
Al- D
AK- D+
AZ- D
AR- D
CA- D
CO- C
CT- C+
DE- C
FL- D
GA-D-
HI- D
ID- C
IL- D
IN- C+
IA- D
KS- D
KY- D
LA- C-
ME- A-
MD- C+
MA- D
MI- D-
MN- c
MS- D+
MO- C+
MT- D+
NE- C
NV- D+
NH- D+
NJ- D
NM- D+
NY- D
NC- C+
ND- D
OH- C-
OK- D
OR- C+
PA- D
RI- C-
SC- D+
SD- C
TN- D
TX- D-
UT- C-
VT- B
VA- D-
WA- D
WV- D-
WI- C
WY- C
Asset Forfeiture Report | The Institute for Justice

[hiknapster]

Pennsylvania gets a D, too? No. Say it ain't so.

[donsabi]

Tennessee has a video to go with their rating.

No wonder Tennessee asked truck drivers and citizens to watch for suspicious happenings on the highway.
The police and state troopers are too busy stopping out of state cars looking for money.

[DubbleT]

Video or no video this is happening in many other places besides TN.

I-40 is a major drug trafficking corridor, TN makes a LOT of drug busts from people on their way up from areas further south.
I don't have a problem with the state using seized assets to fund enforcement. As long as people have a way of retrieving their money if they can prove they obtained it legally then I don't see a problem.
The only issue I might have is if they make the process of retrieving the money too arduous.

What sort of deterrent to drug trafficking on our highways would you prefer to see in place, and how would you like to see it funded?

[FLORIDA TO NIOTA 2010]

It makes no sense that someone would travel with a large amount of money on them unless they are doing something illegal. And that goes for truckers or anyone else.
They were saying that it looked like the police were only watching the road going toward Mexico (cash going into Mexico) and not the road heading away from Mexico (drugs coming out of Mexico). The reason for that (IMO) is if they bust someone with drugs, then the pollice have to hold on to the drugs until the trial then burn it and result is no revenue. If they get someone with a large amount of cash (possibly to purchase drugs) that is revenue after the waiting period. And if the police get the cash intended for the drug purchase, that is one less drug deal to end up on the streets.

[donsabi]

You really should watch the video in its entirety. The police are allowed to keep the cash. The point is that the police are targeting the money and leaving the drugs go through. The idea of drug enforcement is to stop the flow of drugs. There is so much profit in drugs that a drug group would much rather have the cash stopped than the drugs confiscated. I would suspect that they don't run the money in one vehicle and when the police do make a bust it is only a small part of the actual money getting through. Secondly Tennessee is one the top meth producing states. I guess there is no money in busting meth labs.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by donsabi

You really should watch the video in its entirety. The police are allowed to keep the cash. The point is that the police are targeting the money and leaving the drugs go through. The idea of drug enforcement is to stop the flow of drugs. There is so much profit in drugs that a drug group would much rather have the cash stopped than the drugs confiscated. I would suspect that they don't run the money in one vehicle and when the police do make a bust it is only a small part of the actual money getting through. Secondly Tennessee is one the top meth producing states. I guess there is no money in busting meth labs.

One of many states where meth is a problem. The federal gov. cut funding for meth clean up monies to states. Tn is one of the states that depended on federal assistance so, yes, the number of bust has decreased. Its only logical that authorities would concentrate on what generates revenue instead of what depletes revenue they dont have. Perhaps with revenue from these cash seizers they can afford to continue their efforts on met busts.

It is not news that some corruption will occur within law enforcement, everywhere. They are no more immune to it than anyone else.

[rlrm777]

Originally Posted by FLORIDA TO NIOTA 2010

It makes no sense that someone would travel with a large amount of money on them unless they are doing something illegal. And that goes for truckers or anyone else.
They were saying that it looked like the police were only watching the road going toward Mexico (cash going into Mexico) and not the road heading away from Mexico (drugs coming out of Mexico). The reason for that (IMO) is if they bust someone with drugs, then the pollice have to hold on to the drugs until the trial then burn it and result is no revenue. If they get someone with a large amount of cash (possibly to purchase drugs) that is revenue after the waiting period. And if the police get the cash intended for the drug purchase, that is one less drug deal to end up on the streets.

I live close to I-40 and have traveled between Nashville and Jackson quite often, and also noticed that more often than not, they are concentrating on the West-bound lanes. Instead of having Drug Task Force on their cars, they should just be honest and write "Ka-ching" instead.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by DubbleT

I don't have a problem with the state using seized assets to fund enforcement. As long as people have a way of retrieving their money if they can prove they obtained it legally then I don't see a problem.
The only issue I might have is if they make the process of retrieving the money too arduous.

I also don't have problem with using legally seized property or money to fund police activity. However, I COMPLETELY disagree with seizing property or money without actually charging the owner with a crime.

This activity has occasionally surfaced in the news for many many years, usually pertaining to physical or real property (cars, land) seized from innocent people because they didn't know their property was being used by someone in the drug trade. Maybe marijuana planted way back in some forgotten corner of an old farmer's land by a neighbor or renter, or someone lending a vehicle to a friend.

They can get the property/money back, but the process IS arduous. You have to hire a lawyer and sue the government. The government delays and postpones hoping you will go away. Eventually, after months or even years, after spending thousands in legal fees, a judge finally hears your case and you might get your stuff back.

Back to my original statement, possession of large sums of cash is not illegal. Highly suspicious, yes, but not illegal, and not necessarily related to drugs. If they can substantially link the cash to drugs, then charge the courier and seize the money. Keep the money until trial. If they convict (or get a plea deal), they can keep the money. But no keeping money or property without a conviction.