TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting result of an interesting case.

$50,000 in seized cash plus $10,000 attorney fees returned in Nevada federal court settlement despite DA's statement that there is no indication there have been any illegal stops or any wrongdoing on the part of the county sheriff or his deputies. Plaintiffs' lawyer had claimed that the pretext for the stop, followed by a search and seizure, was doing 78 in a 75.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/03 ... =news&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

These so-called "forfeitures" really chap my butt. The court may say they are legal, but I still believe they are a total non-constitutional travesty of justice. They are a prime example of how the so-called "war on drugs" has spilled over to destroy constitutional liberties and rights that were considered our birthright 50 years ago, affecting everyone in society far beyond the original intended "drug trade".

Jumping Frog wrote:These so-called "forfeitures" really chap my butt. The court may say they are legal, but I still believe they are a total non-constitutional travesty of justice. They are a prime example of how the so-called "war on drugs" has spilled over to destroy constitutional liberties and rights that were considered our birthright 50 years ago, affecting everyone in society far beyond the original intended "drug trade".

I am still surprised that this is allowed to continue. They are a total travesty.

It is beyond my comprehension that judges allow these cases to stand.

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:These so-called "forfeitures" really chap my butt. The court may say they are legal, but I still believe they are a total non-constitutional travesty of justice. They are a prime example of how the so-called "war on drugs" has spilled over to destroy constitutional liberties and rights that were considered our birthright 50 years ago, affecting everyone in society far beyond the original intended "drug trade".

I am still surprised that this is allowed to continue. They are a total travesty.

It is beyond my comprehension that judges allow these cases to stand.

I thought the exposure and lawsuits for the sham confiscations years ago in on I-10 in Louisiana had put a stop to this sort of thing. As I recall they would let a dog sniff currency for traces of drugs and then take the money. Problems arose when it was learned that much of the currency in circulation is contaminated including some of the sheriffs own bills from his wallet. Never agree to a search!

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:These so-called "forfeitures" really chap my butt. The court may say they are legal, but I still believe they are a total non-constitutional travesty of justice. They are a prime example of how the so-called "war on drugs" has spilled over to destroy constitutional liberties and rights that were considered our birthright 50 years ago, affecting everyone in society far beyond the original intended "drug trade".

I am still surprised that this is allowed to continue. They are a total travesty.

It is beyond my comprehension that judges allow these cases to stand.

I thought the exposure and lawsuits for the sham confiscations years ago in on I-10 in Louisiana had put a stop to this sort of thing. As I recall they would let a dog sniff currency for traces of drugs and then take the money. Problems arose when it was learned that much of the currency in circulation is contaminated including some of the sheriffs own bills from his wallet. Never agree to a search!

I was thinking some more about this situation.

If Nyguen offered the police $50,000 cash to let him go, he would be arrested for bribery. If the police ask for the $50,000 and say they will let him go, that is lawful.

They have the guns.

nightmare wrote:They have the guns.

And the badge

puma guy wrote:As I recall they would let a dog sniff currency for traces of drugs and then take the money. Problems arose when it was learned that much of the currency in circulation is contaminated including some of the sheriffs own bills from his wallet.

He's lucky the drug dog didn't take a bite out of his backside.

As I recall these laws were introduced during the Reagan administration.

As long a people just complain and do nothing it will just get worse.

VoiceofReason wrote:As long a people just complain and do nothing it will just get worse.

Well, there is the whole meme, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and cartridge. Please use in that order."

So far, I've stuck with items 1 & 2: soap and ballot.

puma guy wrote: Never agree to a search!

IMHO, about 50% of the time they'll search if they want. Very little downside. If you're a bad guy, they catch you and you lose your stuff. You get away only after some time and a lot of lawyer fees. That's versus letting you drive away.
If you're a good guy and they don't find anything, how many good guys actually follow through with a complaint? It'd cost a lot more than you're going to win to sue.

Seems pretty clear to me why it's not as simple as just saying no to a search, at least in some cases.

cb1000rider wrote:

puma guy wrote: Never agree to a search!

IMHO, about 50% of the time they'll search if they want. Very little downside. If you're a bad guy, they catch you and you lose your stuff. You get away only after some time and a lot of lawyer fees. That's versus letting you drive away.
If you're a good guy and they don't find anything, how many good guys actually follow through with a complaint? It'd cost a lot more than you're going to win to sue.

Seems pretty clear to me why it's not as simple as just saying no to a search, at least in some cases.

I have absolutely nothing to hide and I know they'll search if they want to, but w/o permission or PC it's not a legal search. At least from my understanding of the 4th A.

puma guy wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

puma guy wrote: Never agree to a search!

IMHO, about 50% of the time they'll search if they want. Very little downside. If you're a bad guy, they catch you and you lose your stuff. You get away only after some time and a lot of lawyer fees. That's versus letting you drive away.
If you're a good guy and they don't find anything, how many good guys actually follow through with a complaint? It'd cost a lot more than you're going to win to sue.

Seems pretty clear to me why it's not as simple as just saying no to a search, at least in some cases.

I have absolutely nothing to hide and I know they'll search if they want to, but w/o permission or PC it's not a legal search. At least from my understanding of the 4th A.

At least if they don't find $50,000 in your car.

WildBill wrote: At least if they don't find $50,000 in your car.

I don't regularly carry $50k in the car, but I've bought cars, boats, and motorcycles with cash... I don't worry about the seizure so much in Texas, but a few states over...hmm...