Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

WinterBorn

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2011
57,675
23,784
2,300
Atlanta
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
 
There has to be more to the story.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a growing problem, particularly when the police departments doing it profit directly from whatever is seized.
It costs lots of money to fight the problem the drug dealers cause. So you could be paying more taxes instead. But throwing out a generic complaint doesn't shed any light on the subject.
 
There has to be more to the story.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a growing problem, particularly when the police departments doing it profit directly from whatever is seized.
It costs lots of money to fight the problem the drug dealers cause. So you could be paying more taxes instead. But throwing out a generic complaint doesn't shed any light on the subject.

The issue isn't funding police departments, the issue is using a civil system to seize assets from people and do an end run around criminal constitutional protections. If these people could have been charged with a crime, it would have happened already. This is government power abuse, pure and simple.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

So basically the police should be able to seize any assets "just in case"?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #9
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

What the cops THINK they know is not the point. The fact that they have not been convicted of any crime is what matters.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
What the cops THINK they know is not the point. The fact that they have not been convicted of any crime is what matters.
You are avoiding the point. They can't open up their brains and see the intent. They go by the circumstantial evidence and no fucking body runs around with a bag full of greenbacks for shits and giggles.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

There are still some people out there who don't trust banks, and keep their money in cash.

If the police want to treat having that much cash as a crime, they should ask for a law making it a crime.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #15
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
What the cops THINK they know is not the point. The fact that they have not been convicted of any crime is what matters.
You are avoiding the point. They can't open up their brains and see the intent. They go by the circumstantial evidence and no fucking body runs around with a bag full of greenbacks for shits and giggles.

So you want the gov't to be able to seize assets based on your opinion and not on having been convicted of a crime? Nice concept of freedom you have there.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #16
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?
I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.
 
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a fuck less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.
 
There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.
Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?
Because illegal drug sales are illegal.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #20
I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.
I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.
I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.
If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?
I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top