Police are gamers too!

[Kinthalis]

I wasn't sure where to put this, the game forum or here...

Story: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/police-xbox-games,news-3023.html

Apparently, police officers pulled over a guy and his friends. They "smelled marijuana" (yeah, sure they did), but found none. They did find, however, an xbox 360 and several games. They said they wanted to check the serial numbers to see if they were stolen merchandise (I call BS on this as well, do the computers in cop cars really have access to a list of stolen xbox serial numbers? I doubt it). They then claimed that although the serial numbers came back clean, they were still going to confiscate the console and the games, and that the only way they were getting them back was to bring a receipt. The guys then went to the station with box AND receipt, and the xbox was no where to be found.

The guys still haven't gotten their xbox 360.

They robbed them. Plain and simple. A bunch of fucking ass hole cops committed blatant theft.

The fuck is wrong with these people?

Dopers of the world, people, protect your rights, because apparently they can be violated this easily. Do not talk to the police beyond identification and the required driver's paper work. DO NOT consent to a search of your person or property. Ask firmly if you are free to go. And most importantly, NEVER travel with your console! Or donuts. Either are apparently too much temptation to the average cop.

[Fish]

Either are apparently too much temptation to the average cop.
This cop was average?

[Der Trihs]

This cop was average?Robbing people with the excuse of the drug war has become pretty common, so apparently yes.

[Kinthalis]

This cop was average?

That part was hyperbole. Still, you gotta figure that this wasn't just 1 cop. It was probably his partner as well, and every other cop they bragged about it to at the station.

I'm hoping the media attention will cost these assholes their job and teach the rest a lesson.

[Una Persson]

Dopers of the world, people, protect your rights, because apparently they can be violated this easily. Do not talk to the police beyond identification and the required driver's paper work. DO NOT consent to a search of your person or property. Ask firmly if you are free to go. And most importantly, NEVER travel with your console! Or donuts. Either are apparently too much temptation to the average cop.
But here we get to the dilemma - cops crooked enough to outright steal an X-Box will have no qualms about searching you and stealing from you regardless of your protests standing by the side of the road. In fact, if you piss them off enough, who knows? Maybe a baggie of pot materializes in your glove box. Maybe a gun does, and you get a full takedown. Maybe you get 3 cops swearing an oath you "took a swing" at one of them. I've personally had cops lie to me and make up offenses (4 made-up traffic tickets in one stop, with a threat that I'd better shut up unless I wanted to go to jail for "resisting"), so I know for a fact it can and will happen.

I agree 100% with your principle. In practice, I do not.

[Kinthalis]

But we have to stand by our principles, don't we?

I understand that a cop will lie to get his ass out of trouble as often as the guy two cubicles down from you (and have had many lie about situations I was involved in as well as threaten myself and my family, etc) and many are down right criminals, but we can't just say "Oh well" and throw our hands up! Can we?

[Una Persson]

But we have to stand by our principles, don't we?

I understand that a cop will lie to get his ass out of trouble as often as the guy two cubicles down from you (and have had many lie about situations I was involved in as well as threaten myself and my family, etc) and many are down right criminals, but we can't just say "Oh well" and throw our hands up! Can we?
It all depends on the circumstances. Well-lit place with witnesses, sure. Out on a lonely country road...not so sure.

Not meaning to hijack your OP; I agree it's deplorable what the cops did.

[mhendo]

But here we get to the dilemma - cops crooked enough to outright steal an X-Box will have no qualms about searching you and stealing from you regardless of your protests standing by the side of the road. In fact, if you piss them off enough, who knows? Maybe a baggie of pot materializes in your glove box. Maybe a gun does, and you get a full takedown. Maybe you get 3 cops swearing an oath you "took a swing" at one of them. I've personally had cops lie to me and make up offenses (4 made-up traffic tickets in one stop, with a threat that I'd better shut up unless I wanted to go to jail for "resisting"), so I know for a fact it can and will happen.

I agree 100% with your principle. In practice, I do not.Yep.

I have a little book somewhere at home called You and the Police, which offers advice about what to do if you come into contact with law enforcement in a variety of situations.

The author believes that there are three types of cop:

Peace officers - the good and honest cops who really believe in doing their job properly, and who treat citizens with respect and within the bounds of their authority.

Intimidating cops - these police will push the bounds of their constitutional authority, and will try to intimidate you into waiving your rights, often by lying, at every opportunity.

Rogue cops - these are the truly corrupt police, actually willing to actually break the law, to plant evidence, to steal, and generally do just about anything to get their way.

The author of the book believes that the majority of cops are Intimidating Cops, and he says that his book is designed for dealing with those cops. With a true Peace Officer, you won't need most of the advice, and with Rogue Cop the advice will basically be useless, because the advice itself relies on the fact that the cop, at some level, actually cares about your rights and about the possible consequences of his actions.

[Scumpup]

Cops, even good ones, have a tradition of stealing through informal confiscation. I don't think I've ever known even one cop, outside of those who worked only traffic, who didn't have a knife or two and perhaps a gun or two that he had taken off of some mook.
Sometimes the mook in question, due to being or parole or a convicted felon, couldn't legally have the item in question to begin with. Sometimes the mook in question had it taken away from him during a situation where he was facing legal troubles over something unrelated e.g. having a knife seized after getting stopped for possible DUI.
Sometimes the mook in question is a juvenile and not in much of a position to fight city hall and get his property back.

Hell, I've known cops who had whole gun collections made up of guns that were "seized as evidence."

The new generation of cops just has different interests than the cops I knew.

[buttonjockey308]

I call BS on this as well, do the computers in cop cars really have access to a list of stolen xbox serial numbers? I doubt it).

Actually, they might. Not just stolen game systems but stolen anything with a serial number that has been entered into the NCIC/State/local DB is accessable by LE.

This dickhead cop did a dickhead thing and needs time off for it. There was no solid reason evident from the information we have here to say that the removal of the system was appropriate. Now, a scenario I CAN imagine is officer dickerson smelling the dope, finding a little roach or small baggie and exchanging this dude's freedom for the xbox. I'm not saying it's right, but it's possible.

[DrDeth]

From a related site "But the console could not be found because it had not yet been transferred to the evidence room". That too is common, and it can take a day for an item to be loged in. Really, until we give this a day or so, there's no reason to be calling this cop a theif.

[mhendo]

From a related site "But the console could not be found because it had not yet been transferred to the evidence room". That too is common, and it can take a day for an item to be loged in. Really, until we give this a day or so, there's no reason to be calling this cop a theif.From this story (http://www.wftv.com/news/18018574/detail.html#-):The deputy ran the serial numbers and it did not come up as stolen, but he took the game system anyway. He told Hillman he wanted to make sure no one reported it stolen. Deputies told Eyewitness News there had been a lot of burglaries in the area and Xbox systems are hot.In what fucking universe is it reasonable for a cop to take one of your possessions merely to "make sure no one reported it stolen"?

Where would it stop? "I'm sorry sir, but while your car has not been reported stolen, we need to confiscate it just to make sure."

[DrDeth]

From this story (http://www.wftv.com/news/18018574/detail.html#-):In what fucking universe is it reasonable for a cop to take one of your possessions merely to "make sure no one reported it stolen"?

Where would it stop? "I'm sorry sir, but while your car has not been reported stolen, we need to confiscate it just to make sure."

I did not say the cop wasn't being a dickhead. I said we'll need to wait to see if he's really a theif.

[Fish]

The link in the OP doesn't answer the basic question in my mind: how do you know that the pothead wasn't lying?

"Hey, man, we just have to accuse the cop of stealing my Xbox and boom, we get a free one!"

Seriously. It's entirely possible that this whole thing was made up by a guy who was looking for a way to score something for free. Why is the policeman automatically wrong?

[mhendo]

The link in the OP doesn't answer the basic question in my mind: how do you know that the pothead wasn't lying?

"Hey, man, we just have to accuse the cop of stealing my Xbox and boom, we get a free one!"

Seriously. It's entirely possible that this whole thing was made up by a guy who was looking for a way to score something for free. Why is the policeman automatically wrong?From the article i linked in my previous post:When Eyewitness News called the Orange County Sheriff's Office, a spokesperson said they couldn't find the gaming system because it had not yet been transferred to the evidence room.

Later, Hillman got a hold of the supervisor, Sgt. Hosey. Hillman said Hosey told him he had the system and would give it back.

<snip>

The sheriff's office said it does not believe Hillman stole the system and he is free to pick it up. The sergeant who is handling the situation said he'll give it him Friday because he is busy during the week.So, the Sheriff's Office admits to having the guy's gaming system. What, then, strikes you as implausible about the driver's story?

[Taber]

They have the receipt.

[mhendo]

I did not say the cop wasn't being a dickhead. I said we'll need to wait to see if he's really a theif.The problem is, though, that we can now never really know either way.

Of course, once this story hit the news, there's no way the cop is going to keep the XBox. But we have no way of knowing what he would have done had the owner not gone to the media.

I think the very fact that he confiscated the property without making an arrest, and without any evidence that it was stolen, weighs pretty heavily against him.

[Omegaman]

That part was hyperbole. Still, you gotta figure that this wasn't just 1 cop. It was probably his partner as well, and every other cop they bragged about it to at the station.

I'm hoping the media attention will cost these assholes their job and teach the rest a lesson.

I'm sure it will have the same effect as does the rest on the people that lie. Not a damn thing.

[catsix]

Scumpup said:
Cops, even good ones, have a tradition of stealing through informal confiscation.

By definition, someone who steals is a thief. A good cop and a thief are mutually exclusive terms.

Part of being a 'good cop' means being a 'good person' which means you don't steal from other people. If you want a knife, a gun, or a gaming console, you buy it your damn self.

When you have a gun and you take someone's property by force, that's called robbery. It is not excused if the person doing it also has a badge. If anything, it's worse.

[OtakuLoki]

I think the very fact that he confiscated the property without making an arrest, and without any evidence that it was stolen, weighs pretty heavily against him.

That's just it. Even if we accept only the story of the cops: taking property without any clear indication that it is stolen seems to be a pretty big violation of the whole presumption of innocence thing. Of course the RICO statutes have kicked holes in that already.

[Fish]

From the article i linked in my previous post
And I said, in the OP there was no plausible evidence that the stoners were telling the truth.

From your link it seems as if the stoners are not telling the truth. The police confiscated the item as evidence... tne police did not "steal" it.

[OtakuLoki]

From your link it seems as if the stoners are not telling the truth. The police confiscated the item as evidence... tne police did not "steal" it.

Evidence of what, precisely? That teens play video games? Do we need the police to prove that to your satisfaction?

[Grumman]

And I said, in the OP there was no plausible evidence that the stoners were telling the truth.
On what basis are you calling them "stoners"?

From your link it seems as if the stoners are not telling the truth. The police confiscated the item as evidence... tne police did not "steal" it.
What justification was there to confiscate the item? There was no evidence of any crime being committed.

[mhendo]

And I said, in the OP there was no plausible evidence that the stoners were telling the truth.

From your link it seems as if the stoners are not telling the truth. The police confiscated the item as evidence... tne police did not "steal" it.You, and they, can use whatever name takes your fancy.

But when they take something with no cause, i think "steal" fits the bill pretty nicely.

[mhendo]

On what basis are you calling them "stoners"?This also is a good question.

You seem, Fish, to be quite happy to refer to them as stoners despite zero evidence, yet you are willing to make the most generous interpretation possible of the cop's actions.

[villa]

From a related site "But the console could not be found because it had not yet been transferred to the evidence room". That too is common, and it can take a day for an item to be loged in. Really, until we give this a day or so, there's no reason to be calling this cop a theif.

Which is one reason why evidence gets tossed in court. I don't know what the procedure is for logging evidence in this precinct, but it sounds like the chain of custody on this piece of "evidence" has been pretty screwed up.

[buttonjockey308]

What we know is that the cop took the xbox, what we don't know is why, and we'll likely never know. The problem is, as Scumpup said, there's often an exchange of goods for services on the street. This is not only common, it's necessary. It's how information gets exchanged, how intel gets gathered, how real bad guys get busted and how some people need to learn lessons.

It's great in theory to rail against the "injustice" that took place here. It's true, the cop was being a dickhead. It's probably also true that because the CP looks like he does, he gets pegged as a knuckle head. It's not necessarily fair, and yes, it's profiling, but more often than not, it works. He looks and/or acts like a dozen guys I've encountered in the past 10 days who, by their aroma alone, were also stoners or hung out with them long enough to come away with at LEAST the odor of teh dope still on their clothing. Also, we don't know what the experiences the CP has had with the local coppers. He may have a long history of arrests or negative contact with the police that the public will never be allowed to know about.

I'm not condoning what the cop did, but I'm saying that you have less to fear from the police than you do from the bad guys. There's a reason this is a news story, because it doesn't happen all that often.


cp=complaining party

[Der Trihs]

There's a reason this is a news story, because it doesn't happen all that often.No; it's because he's making a public fight of it instead of rolling over. It's not rare at all, and is often a lot worse than an X-box. It could've been his car instead, for example.

[Paul in Qatar]

What was the deputy's name? Why was that not mentioned?

[Xan]

What we know is that the cop took the xbox, what we don't know is why, and we'll likely never know. The problem is, as Scumpup said, there's often an exchange of goods for services on the street. This is not only common, it's necessary. It's how information gets exchanged, how intel gets gathered, how real bad guys get busted and how some people need to learn lessons.

It's great in theory to rail against the "injustice" that took place here. It's true, the cop was being a dickhead. It's probably also true that because the CP looks like he does, he gets pegged as a knuckle head. It's not necessarily fair, and yes, it's profiling, but more often than not, it works. He looks and/or acts like a dozen guys I've encountered in the past 10 days who, by their aroma alone, were also stoners or hung out with them long enough to come away with at LEAST the odor of teh dope still on their clothing. Also, we don't know what the experiences the CP has had with the local coppers. He may have a long history of arrests or negative contact with the police that the public will never be allowed to know about.

I'm not condoning what the cop did, but I'm saying that you have less to fear from the police than you do from the bad guys. There's a reason this is a news story, because it doesn't happen all that often.


cp=complaining party

Or the cop could have been lying about the marijuana in the first place.

[Fish]

On what basis are you calling them "stoners"?
On the same basis that the OP is calling the cop an "average cop" and assuming that all cops are ipso facto thieving, bullying assholes.

I admit that there's something funny going on in this story. However, since the Straight Dope has a "oh noes, evil cops" Pit thread about every 2.2 minutes, my knee-jerk response is to say, "on what evidence do you believe the police are necessarily in the wrong?"

I'm sick and tired of people always assuming that police are bad people. The OP didn't have that evidence, and I'm waiting for such evidence to come to light.

[Fish]

You seem, Fish, to be quite happy to refer to them as stoners despite zero evidence, yet you are willing to make the most generous interpretation possible of the cop's actions.
Hey, somebody's got to represent the other side of the I'm-a-kneejerk-idiot spectrum. There's no basis for referring to the cop as a thief and the teens as pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent victims except habitual paranoia.

[Fish]

Or the cop could have been lying about the marijuana in the first place.
It's certainly possible that the cop was lying about it. I am not going to automatically accept the word of either party. The evidence presented in the OP seems so egregiously one-sided that it's hard to swallow.

Maybe the cop was leaning on some teenage kids in order to steal an Xbox. But maybe the teens did smell of marijuana and maybe they did have something to hide (which, of course, they would never admit to in a news article).

If the police duly process their paperwork and the kid gets his Xbox back, I'd say we still don't have reliable evidence that either party is necessarily 100% in the right. (Of course, if we see evidence on the Xbox hard drive that somebody was playing games between the time of the arrest and the time of the return, then you got something.)

Is it too much to wait for evidence any more? We have to reach for the rope every time a police officer is accused of inappropriate behavior?

[catsix]

Fish said:
There's no basis for referring to the cop as a thief and the teens as pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent victims except habitual paranoia.

I am struggling to think of a reason why a cop would take an XBOX off of someone when he has absolutely no reason to believe that it is stolen.

They say that it was confiscated as evidence. Evidence of what? Typically there is some sort of crime which an item is evidence of before said item is actually confiscated.

What is the crime that caused the cops to believe the XBOX was evidence and that they had to seize it?

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

This dickhead cop did a dickhead thing and needs time off for it.

Nothing personal buttonjockey308, but this attitude pisses me off. Time off? This guy should be prosecuted for theft and do time in prison just like any other citizen.

Why is it that when cops commit crimes that they only get fired instead of going to prison?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

You, Fish, are an idiot. I typically take the side of the police in the SDMB police pile ons, but you have gone beyond the pale in defending these assholes.

There is no evidence that the kids were stoners. The police searched them and their car and found no evidence they had any illegal drugs. What evidence do you have that they were stoners? That one of the officers claimed to smell pot? That's hearsay; they searched the kids and their car and no evidence was found. The police may have invented the smell so they could have probable cause, and you know what, I am not going to condemn them for this in this thread... But taking the XBox on the off chance that it was stolen property (even after they ran the serial number and found it clean) is an illegal seizure. If truly concerned, the police could have made a note of the serial number and ran that several days later and then went and picked up the kids if it was reported as stolen. Taking the console with zero evidence that a crime had been committed is criminal and you are a moron for defending it.

[Fish]

I am struggling to think of a reason why a cop would take an XBOX off of someone when he has absolutely no reason to believe that it is stolen.
I can't either, assuming the story is true.

But people are full of shit. I'm going to assume that the people in the story are lying about something, because that's what people do. "I was just driving along and minding my own business and the cop pulls me over for no reason at all and steals my Xbox and we're completely innocent" doesn't happen very often.

I'm going to assume that either party may be right, and to skeptically eye any self-serving statements by the victims until we get a complete story representing the other side.

[Fish]

But taking the XBox on the off chance that it was stolen property (even after they ran the serial number and found it clean) is an illegal seizure. If truly concerned, the police could have made a note of the serial number and ran that several days later and then went and picked up the kids if it was reported as stolen. Taking the console with zero evidence that a crime had been committed is criminal and you are a moron for defending it.
How do you know that the victims are telling the truth? Are you willing to say that the story given by the OP is 100% without embellishment? I'm not.

I'm not saying this policeman is 100% innocent. I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. Too much to ask of you?

[Scumpup]

I guess I should clarify my earlier post about "informal confiscation." When the cops I knew took something, usually a weapon but sometimes other things, off of a mook the underlying dynamic was one of punishment more than greed. Typically the item in question was something the mook could not legally have; perhaps it was stolen, or an illegal substance, or the mook's own legal status interfered_as with weapons.
So the cop taking some ratbag's pistol was less "I want this pistol for myself" than it was "You aren't allowed to have a pistol, ratbag, so I'm taking it...and you should be kissing my ass for not bringing charges against you." Keeping the pistol or knife was actually more of an afterthought. The other stuff they seized, like alcohol from minors or small amounts of illicit chemicals, just got dumped or flushed. Summary extra-legal punishment as a way of keeping the riff-raff acquainted with the pecking order, you see. "I'm flushing your dope, ratbag, and you can't do a thing about it. Don't let me see you out looking for more tonight."
If any of this X-box saga is true at all, it could be a similar situation.

[buttonjockey308]

No; it's because he's making a public fight of it instead of rolling over. It's not rare at all, and is often a lot worse than an X-box. It could've been his car instead, for example.


I believe I understand your leanings, but this statement makes you look completely ignorant of the systems and processes in place. It's more tenable to say the cops rolled the dope dealer for cash or jewelry or whatever, but a car? No.

[buttonjockey308]

Nothing personal buttonjockey308, but this attitude pisses me off. Time off? This guy should be prosecuted for theft and do time in prison just like any other citizen.

Why is it that when cops commit crimes that they only get fired instead of going to prison?

First off, he didn't break into someones house and steal it and the CP is getting the thing back, so at worst he 'impounded' the xbox. Second, as I said, no one REALLY knows why. The cop may have violated policy, he may have gone against SOP/SOG or he may have had a good reason that we'll never know for taking the xbox that would have outraged the public all the more. Say he had a joint in his pocket, or a minor amount of some illegal drug, just as a for instance. Rather than take him down, book him put him into the system, set all the nonsense in motion for what will eventually be a minor fine and/or community service, the cop took the xbox away and decided what to do with it later. I'm not saying the exchange is per se "right" I'm saying it happens. Cops just don't walk around willy-nilly taking the property of innocent people. The ones that do get harsher sentences than the average theif in many jurisdictions because you not only add the count of theft, aggravated by the position of trust but then add official misconduct and the fact that the cops have to go spend time in the jail they helped put people in. It's a much more untenable position with that in mind to be a garden variety thief.

Or the cop could have been lying about the marijuana in the first place.

He sure could have.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

I can't either, assuming the story is true.

But people are full of shit. I'm going to assume that the people in the story are lying about something, because that's what people do. "I was just driving along and minding my own business and the cop pulls me over for no reason at all and steals my Xbox and we're completely innocent" doesn't happen very often.Can I just add a little information here?

1) They weren't pulled over for "no reason at all", they readily admitted they were pulled over for speeding, but did not get a ticket.

2) They aren't kids. The XBox owner looks like he's about 28-30 years old. He's a black guy with dreds.

[mhendo]

I guess I should clarify my earlier post about "informal confiscation." When the cops I knew took something, usually a weapon but sometimes other things, off of a mook the underlying dynamic was one of punishment more than greed. Typically the item in question was something the mook could not legally have; perhaps it was stolen, or an illegal substance, or the mook's own legal status interfered_as with weapons.
So the cop taking some ratbag's pistol was less "I want this pistol for myself" than it was "You aren't allowed to have a pistol, ratbag, so I'm taking it...and you should be kissing my ass for not bringing charges against you." Keeping the pistol or knife was actually more of an afterthought. The other stuff they seized, like alcohol from minors or small amounts of illicit chemicals, just got dumped or flushed. Summary extra-legal punishment as a way of keeping the riff-raff acquainted with the pecking order, you see. "I'm flushing your dope, ratbag, and you can't do a thing about it. Don't let me see you out looking for more tonight."
If any of this X-box saga is true at all, it could be a similar situation.So the cops you knew were all criminals?

Good to know that such upstanding citizens are looking out for our interests.

[Scumpup]

So the cops you knew were all criminals?

Good to know that such upstanding citizens are looking out for our interests.

The way police do things has changed. For the most part there is now more accountability, which is a good thing. There are also times, however, when it'd be nice if a cop could still administer a little attitude correction with his nightstick and then send a lowlife on his way.

[Stuffy]

The way police do things has changed. For the most part there is now more accountability, which is a good thing. There are also times, however, when it'd be nice if a cop could still administer a little attitude correction with his nightstick and then send a lowlife on his way.

That attitude makes you a moron.

[Scumpup]

Your genetics make you a moron. My attitude could change.

[Stuffy]

Your genetics make you a moron. My attitude could change.


My aren't you clever.

[Blaster Master]

Or the cop could have been lying about the marijuana in the first place.

I think this is not an unlikely scenario; I've had it happen to me before and I have never smoked it and the people I was with had been with me certainly didn't have any. He tried to use it to search my car and, after denying him that and he got frustrated enough to physically threaten me infront of 2 other witnesses, I got out of the speeding ticket too.


Either way, based on the available evidence, you can't say whether the cop lied and used it as an excuse to search his car and rob him, or if there was some sort of backdoor bribe or extra-legal punishment that went on that involved the Xbox. Either way, there's no justifiable reason for confiscating the confiscating the Xbox, even if he was trying to help the kid avoid a misdemeanor and still learn his lesson, he was acting outside the law. That cop should, at minimum, be suspended if he was doing some sort of extra-legal discipline, and if he did steal it he should absolutely be prosecuted.

[DrDeth]

Either way, based on the available evidence, you can't say .....

Anything, really. We don't have any decent updates with something like a statement from the PD.

[Grumman]

I admit that there's something funny going on in this story. However, since the Straight Dope has a "oh noes, evil cops" Pit thread about every 2.2 minutes, my knee-jerk response is to say, "on what evidence do you believe the police are necessarily in the wrong?"
We already know that the police took his Xbox - both sides admit that. That puts the burden of proof on the police to show they had a good reason to do so.

"You aren't allowed to have a pistol, ratbag, so I'm taking it...and you should be kissing my ass for not bringing charges against you."
Your friends in the police department deliberately subvert firearms laws?

[Scumpup]

I have no friends who are cops any more. They are all retired or dead (from age, not gunfire)now. Yes, some of them did subvert firearms laws. Some of them also let folks go or drove them home when they should have, by the law, written them tickets for speeding or DUI. Sometimes they hauled a kid home by his ear to momma instead of charging him with retail theft. They used to do lots of things.
Police work, as I noted upthread, has changed. There is far more accountability, which is generally_but not always_a good thing. Those old timey cops I knew as a kid, and was later privileged to work with a bit, were good men, IMO. They knew the people in their jurisdiction and were largely well liked by those people. They didn't enforce the letter of the law on all occasions, it's true. Some of those very people they informally punished will tell you, quite honestly, that Officer So-and-So did him a great favor by giving him a knot on the head, a ride home, and a chance to straighten out instead of demolishing his future by making him a convict.

[furt]

Some of those very people they informally punished will tell you, quite honestly, that Officer So-and-So did him a great favor by giving him a knot on the head, a ride home, and a chance to straighten out instead of demolishing his future by making him a convict.I'm one of them.

I don't think it's legally kosher for the cops to make a 16-year-old clean toilets before letting him go. Probably also wasn't in the book that they should casually remind me that people sometimes get ass-raped in jail (which I had no immediate chance of going to anyway).

But it was good policing, and I appreciate it now.

[levdrakon]

NEVER travel with your console! Or donuts. Either are apparently too much temptation to the average cop.Well, see, there's your problem. It's always safer to keep donuts in the car. If these kids had a couple dozen glazed & frosted, they'd be free to go.

[foolsguinea]

At least they didn't shoot the passengers like in Magnum Force.

There's got to be a reason police departments hate private gun ownership. Hm.

[foolsguinea]

Oh, I've met some dickish cops. And I've been a real dick to other cops who were just doing their jobs--which meant they ended up restraining me as a precaution. (I was an obnoxious youth.) But I've been treated decently by some police as well. I don't want to encourage the kind of knee-jerk anti-police attitudes I had as a teenager.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Either way, there's no justifiable reason for confiscating the confiscating the Xbox, even if he was trying to help the kid avoid a misdemeanor and still learn his lesson, I don't know why this is bugging but, he's not a "kid". The man graduated from highschool in 1993. So he's like 34 or so.

Otherwise, yeah, on criminal law blogs they are saying it's pretty much a clear-cut case of illegal seizure. You can't just take a citizen's property and have them prove a negative, "Yeah? Well, prove you didn't steal it." And given the lack of proper and prompt documentation that would be the best case scenario.

The stop was good (speeding), the search was sort of okay (probable cause due to the alleged smell of pot), the seizure was not.

[Bam Boo Gut]

You wonder why they didn't charge him for the speeding if they could have legitimately. According to the persons reaction they can get charged for a crime or sent on their way with a warning. If he was giving lip for example - then why not charge for the crime you stopped him for?

[Der Trihs]

I believe I understand your leanings, but this statement makes you look completely ignorant of the systems and processes in place. It's more tenable to say the cops rolled the dope dealer for cash or jewelry or whatever, but a car? No.Yes. They just accuse people of a drug crime, take the car and it's theirs. Good luck trying to get it back.

[OtakuLoki]

buttonjockey308, to expand on Der Trihs's answer: you should check out RICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO) statutes. AIUI, property seized in a RICO bust has to be proven to be 100% the results of legitimate work, and monies, or the gov't keeps it. Even if everyone involved in the original bust is found to be innocent of all criminal charges, that's a standard of proof few people can support.

[Mr. Krebbs]

For those interested, I found a thread about this in another forum I frequent. One of the posters on said forum had this to say:

Originally posted by GLK38 from Glocktalk:

This Orange County Deputy is one of my instructors in my academy. Today he was talking about the whole incident.

First let me say this. He is a Sgt. in a Violent Crimes Tac Squad. His squad has been dealing w/ a bunch of robberies. The main things being taken? Xbox and PS3s. Sgt was sitting outside of a pawn shop in an unmarked watching as the gentleman in the news story "the victim" was going in and out of the pawn shop taking items back and forth. The car they were driving had an expired tag so when they started to leave he pulled them over.

When Sgt. Hosey walked up to the vehicle he smelled a STRONG odor of Marijuana. There is your probable cause for a search.

This fine citizen was recently released from jail for robbery and Sgt. Hosey knew the guy. Sgt. Hosey asked about the Xbox and the guy said he was taking it to the pawn shop so he could pay his light bill. Funny thing is when he searched the guy he had $300 cash in his pocket.

I know the story said 8 games right? Well when you have 2 NBA lives 2 Madden footballs 2 Halos and 2 Need for Speeds thats a bit odd. When I buy a new game for $60 I sure dont buy double of every game. So really he had 4 games with a double of each. Smells fishy.

Sgt. Hosey could not run the serial because it was scratched off. Thats why the pawn shop wouldn't buy it from him.

The Xbox was taken to Evidence to determine if it was stolen. It was not processed buy the time he went to pick it up with his "Receipt". The receipt he had was for a different model. A cheaper arcade model. Thats why they wouldn't release it to him.

It was good police work. Period.

As usual the media smelled blood and ran away with it.

I can't vouch for the source, but this story seems just as plausible as the article to me.

[buttonjockey308]

buttonjockey308, to expand on Der Trihs's answer: you should check out RICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO) statutes. AIUI, property seized in a RICO bust has to be proven to be 100% the results of legitimate work, and monies, or the gov't keeps it. Even if everyone involved in the original bust is found to be innocent of all criminal charges, that's a standard of proof few people can support.

All due respect, but there's a major league difference between what the statutes provide for and what the courts allow. I've personally been a part of the process for six separate RICO cases and of those, only two resulted in a seizure. The thing with RICO is that it requires such exacting records and proof, that it's almost not worth it to go through it unless you can dedicate resources only to that. Of the two vehicles that were seized the first had a multitude of hidden compartments (which is illegal in illinois) in which firearms and pre-packaged drugs were found and the other was found with half a kilo of powder cocaine underneath a spare tire after a lengthy pursuit. Der Trihs inferred that cops just took the bad guy's car and used it for weekend trips to the lake.

Mr. Krebbs If that poster is correct, that would explain the lack of follow-up posts here. Taking both the news story and the post at face value, everything makes a little more sense. Even having the receipt isn't proof that YOU purchased it, if, like me, you keep the receipt with the item box. Unless of course your credit card is further proof.

[mhendo]

Mr. Krebbs If that poster is correct, that would explain the lack of follow-up posts here. Taking both the news story and the post at face value, everything makes a little more sense. Even having the receipt isn't proof that YOU purchased it, if, like me, you keep the receipt with the item box. Unless of course your credit card is further proof.Well, what then is to stop the police from taking anything from me that i'm carrying in my car at any given moment?

I don't carry the receipts around with me and, as you noted, possession of the receipt does not constitute definitive proof that i bought the thing myself.

I don't give a flying fuck if the guy owned two copies of Halo, two of Need for Speed, etc. If the cops are going to take something from you because they suspect it might be stolen, the burden should be on them to demonstrate that fact.

You said that taking the news story at face value, along with that post, makes everything make "a little more sense." But remember that the news story also noted that the officer "ran the serial numbers and it did not come up as stolen." Well, once you've done that, and in the absence of a specific complaint about that individual stealing stuff, the cop should give the damn property back, say "I'm sorry for inconveniencing you, sir. Have a nice day," and then go get a fucking doughnut.

[ed]

buttonjockey308, to expand on Der Trihs's answer: you should check out RICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO) statutes. AIUI, property seized in a RICO bust has to be proven to be 100% the results of legitimate work, and monies, or the gov't keeps it. Even if everyone involved in the original bust is found to be innocent of all criminal charges, that's a standard of proof few people can support.

You don't even need RICO. With civil forfeiture, it's possible to just sue the item and then it becomes the responsibility of the (now disputed) owner to prove that it was not involved in a crime.

I'll pre-empt demands for "cite" with a link (warning, pdf): United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. currency (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf). I hope that money had a good lawyer!

[buttonjockey308]

Well, what then is to stop the police from taking anything from me that i'm carrying in my car at any given moment?

I don't carry the receipts around with me and, as you noted, possession of the receipt does not constitute definitive proof that i bought the thing myself.

I don't give a flying fuck if the guy owned two copies of Halo, two of Need for Speed, etc. If the cops are going to take something from you because they suspect it might be stolen, the burden should be on them to demonstrate that fact.

You said that taking the news story at face value, along with that post, makes everything make "a little more sense." But remember that the news story also noted that the officer "ran the serial numbers and it did not come up as stolen." Well, once you've done that, and in the absence of a specific complaint about that individual stealing stuff, the cop should give the damn property back, say "I'm sorry for inconveniencing you, sir. Have a nice day," and then go get a fucking doughnut.

First, don't gloss over the fact that the serial numbers were supposedly scratched off and that the receipts didn't match, type for type.

Second, what's to stop them, at an absolute minumum, aside from personal and professional integrity, is the fact that their jobs, pensions, and benefits aren't worth your iPod, xbox or any other piece of personal effluvia. Further, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. If you have three TV's in your car at 2 in the afternoon on main street accompanied by recent, matching receipts, there should be no question, you should be sent on your way. If you have three TV's in your car at 2 in the morning on 5th and Oak with the power cables ripped off and the serial numbers crudely scrawled off, I'm gonna check your history, I'm gonna impound your car and the items and I'm gonna take you to lock-up while we sort that out. It's what we pay the cops to do. Sorrry for your inconvenience, but it looks an awful lot like you've stolen these TV's and unless you can show me that's not the case, I'm gonna let you be a guest of the county until I get it sorted out.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

For those interested, I found a thread about this in another forum I frequent. One of the posters on said forum had this to say:

{ details about suspicious activity cut for space }

I can't vouch for the source, but this story seems just as plausible as the article to me.
Interesting. If that's the case, why would Hillman contact the media and make such a fuss? He would be too easily discredited by any media source trying to verify his story. The whole thing sounds weird.

[catsix]

buttonjockey308 said:
Sorrry for your inconvenience, but it looks an awful lot like you've stolen these TV's and unless you can show me that's not the case, I'm gonna let you be a guest of the county until I get it sorted out.

You mean until such time as you can prove that the items are actually stolen, or you have reached the point at which you can no longer hold a person in custody without charges filed, don't you?

Because I am quite sure you didn't mean you would hold the person and their items until you could prove the person innocent.

[furt]

Interesting. If that's the case, why would Hillman contact the media and make such a fuss? He would be too easily discredited by any media source trying to verify his story.Because the media isn't going to bother verifying stories before they run them, especially if it's a potentially exciting one like "cop steals xbox."

Cite ... well that would be the fact that it ran with, as far as I can tell, nothing but the "victim's" side of things.



And to add: Human beings tell lies as a matter of course. It's what we do when we don't have another plan.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Because the media isn't going to bother verifying stories before they run them, especially if it's a potentially exciting one like "cop steals xbox."

Cite ... well that would be the fact that it ran with, as far as I can tell, nothing but the "victim's" side of things.Oh, I totally agree, the American media seems to do fuck all to verify stories before running them. But if Hillman stole an Xbox and a cop confiscated it (legitimately or otherwise), getting the media invovled just seems like a bonehead thing to do.

If I stole something and a cop took it away from me, I'd just let it go rather than really piss off the entire police department.

[Carl Corey]

Yeah, but remember the stories about idiots calling the cops to complain that their drugs had been stolen.

Idiocy abounds.

[buttonjockey308]

You mean until such time as you can prove that the items are actually stolen, or you have reached the point at which you can no longer hold a person in custody without charges filed, don't you?

Because I am quite sure you didn't mean you would hold the person and their items until you could prove the person innocent.

When I said "get it sorted out" I mean hold the person and his effects until I can either charge him or am required to let him go, which is between 24 and 72 hours depending on jurisdiction. I can hold on to the items longer and go back and get him if nothing breaks right away.

[catsix]

buttonjockey308 said:
When I said "get it sorted out" I mean hold the person and his effects until I can either charge him or am required to let him go, which is between 24 and 72 hours depending on jurisdiction. I can hold on to the items longer and go back and get him if nothing breaks right away.

So you would keep someone against their will for 3 days despite having no evidence whatsoever that they had actually committed a crime, and you would also keep their possessions for longer than that even if you had absolutely nothing to corroborate your belief that said items were stolen?

I think I'll make it a point to avoid your jurisdiction.

[buttonjockey308]

So you would keep someone against their will for 3 days despite having no evidence whatsoever that they had actually committed a crime, and you would also keep their possessions for longer than that even if you had absolutely nothing to corroborate your belief that said items were stolen?

I think I'll make it a point to avoid your jurisdiction.

Who voluntarily gets arrested? It's almost ALWAYS against one's will to be taken into custody, kinda the point.

If, like this guy (allegedly), you're a local mutt who's got a long sheet and longer history of committing crimes against the taxpayers, you're damn skippy I'd check you into the graybar B&B for a few nights while I get your hash settled. Cops don't lock up people under that regulation unless there's a good damn reason for it, further, they don't hold your property unless they HAVE to, if for no other reason than the amount of paperwork that goes with it. This, by the only accounts we have, was NOT a "good guy" or "innocent victim" he was a knucklehead with a history of stealing property, in possession of what looked like stolen property (i.e. game system minus serial numbers). If you're arguing just to argue, that's fine, but based on the info we have, the cop in this case did the right thing and any other decent cop would do the same or similar, that's why they pay em.

If I didn't believe the items were stolen based on the evidence I had in front of me, I wouldn't hold them any longer than I would hold the person I took them from. This idea that cops just scoop random people up off the street and lock em up and impound their car and belongings just because they can is above you catsix. Sometimes bad cops do bad things, and bad people do bad things. This, on the sliding scale of bad things, is way low.

[mhendo]

This, by the only accounts we have, was NOT a "good guy" or "innocent victim" he was a knucklehead with a history of stealing property, in possession of what looked like stolen property (i.e. game system minus serial numbers). Actually, by the only reasonable, confirmable accounts we have, he was none of those things.

You might be willing to accept an anonymous posting from a message board that leans heavily in favor of the police, but i'm not.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And I said, in the OP there was no plausible evidence that the stoners were telling the truth.

From your link it seems as if the stoners are not telling the truth. The police confiscated the item as evidence... tne police did not "steal" it.
What is your cite for the victims being "stoners?" The police did not find marijuana in the car.

It also sounds like the Sheriff's Department is backing up everything the victims said. The cops did not "confiscate the console as evidence," because there was no alleged crime that it could be used as evidence for.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What is your cite for the victims being "stoners?" The police did not find marijuana in the car.

It also sounds like the Sheriff's Department is backing up everything the victims said. The cops did not "confiscate the console as evidence," because there was no alleged crime that it could be used as evidence for.
I hadn't read the 2nd page of this thread when I wrote this post. I'm not sure I buy the story posted in Mr. Krebbs' post, but it MAY be true, so I'll withhold judgement.

[catsix]

buttonjockey308 said:
If I didn't believe the items were stolen based on the evidence I had in front of me, I wouldn't hold them any longer than I would hold the person I took them from.

You would still hold someone in custody even if you didn't believe, based on the evidence, that the items were stolen? That doesn't sound like the kind of good work that cops are supposed to be paid for. Then again, your location does say Chicago, and the police department there is kind of known for corruption.

If you consider anonymous postings on a rather pro-police web forum to be full of trustworthy information, then perhaps I should question your judgment more than I already have.

[buttonjockey308]

You would still hold someone in custody even if you didn't believe, based on the evidence, that the items were stolen? That doesn't sound like the kind of good work that cops are supposed to be paid for. Then again, your location does say Chicago, and the police department there is kind of known for corruption.

If you consider anonymous postings on a rather pro-police web forum to be full of trustworthy information, then perhaps I should question your judgment more than I already have.


First, I never said that:

If I didn't believe the items were stolen based on the evidence I had in front of me, I wouldn't hold them any longer than I would hold the person I took them from.

Secondly, the corruption in the City of Chicago is storied, to be sure, but the fact remains that there are more good cops than bad ones, that stems from the fact that there are more good PEOPLE than bad ones. The truly unfortunate thing about police corruption is that it stymies true law enforcement efforts. It halts interdiction into drug and gang-crippled neighborhoods, it stops enforcement efforts in dangerous traffic zones and drug corridors, worst of all, it erodes the public trust. The problem though is that cops have more in common with the people they pursue than the "normal people" that aren't a part of that world. "Normal people" don't go running down dark alleyways with pockets full of dope baggies a gun and stolen money, and "normal people" don't chase them. There is a large chasm between the truth and public perception of the life and duties of law enforcement officers. There are times when you have to push the boundaries pretty hard to catch the bad guy because the bad guy has no boundaries. He's a guerilla, you're a trained solider, you have techniques and methods, he gets by any way he can think of. He pushes the envelope and does something outside of the bounds of societys mores, and he gets pitied and put in a cage for a while to hone his criminal craft. The cop pushes the same enevlope and does things outside of the bounds of society's mores to catch the bad guy, and he too is put in a cage, loses everything he worked for and the good work he HAS done is lost forever. It's not a fair trade. Both the cops and the bad guys understand it.

Third, the news isn't exactly perfect when it comes to relating information. They never cite how they found out that the deputy ran the serial numbers. The FOIA request would have how, when and where the numbers were run, this story would be completely different if they had added the words "The information gathered from the Sheriff's office states the deputy ran the serial numbers at: xx:xx time on this date". So we don't know what we don't know.

The more I dig in to this story, the more I'm finding I side with the Police. This is over an Xbox that could have just been left in the trunk of a squad car and forgotten about when the deputy got busy.

Right now, it seems that we're supposed to take Hillman at his word, which after meeting him (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateReleases/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=27154196) I'm not all that inclined to believe.

[catsix]

buttonjockey308 said:
There are times when you have to push the boundaries pretty hard to catch the bad guy because the bad guy has no boundaries. He's a guerilla, you're a trained solider, you have techniques and methods, he gets by any way he can think of.

I'd rather that the bad guy gets away than the the cops think they're some kind of soldiers who get to color outside the lines. The 'bad guys' are not 'guerillas', and you are not a soldier.

He pushes the envelope and does something outside of the bounds of societys mores, and he gets pitied and put in a cage for a while to hone his criminal craft.

To say nothing of the innocent people who are harmed, imprisoned or killed in the process.

The cop pushes the same enevlope and does things outside of the bounds of society's mores to catch the bad guy, and he too is put in a cage, loses everything he worked for and the good work he HAS done is lost forever.

What actually happens is that the blue wall shows up to protect the cop and he gets a paid vacation for gunning down a 90 year-old grandmother who did nothing more wrong than try to defend herself from a home invasion because the cops lied about an informant so they could get a no-knock warrant.

So we don't know what we don't know.

Yet here you are, basing your opinions on what you take as facts from a pro-cop message board.

The more I dig in to this story, the more I'm finding I side with the Police. This is over an Xbox that could have just been left in the trunk of a squad car and forgotten about when the deputy got busy.

So is it OK if I grab some of your property that I think you should prove you didn't steal, throw it in the trunk of my car and forget about it so that you can't have it back?

Right now, it seems that we're supposed to take Hillman at his word, which after meeting him I'm not all that inclined to believe.

I see how it is. The notion that Hillman is presumed innocent of this crime goes out the window for you because he's been previously convicted of other crimes. Yes, you are supposed to take Hillman at his word, unless you have actual evidence that in this case he is lying. You don't. I don't give a shit if he took a shit on a cop's head 7 years ago. That doesn't mean he stole an Xbox last week.

[The Tao's Revenge]

How do you know that the victims are telling the truth? Are you willing to say that the story given by the OP is 100% without embellishment? I'm not.

I'm not saying this policeman is 100% innocent. I'm saying take everything with a grain of salt. Too much to ask of you?

Cops lie or have nose hallucinations sometimes. My mom had one claim to smell alcohol in the car and search it after she hit some black ice and ended up in the ditch. Guess he needed to make his DUI quota or something. Kept hounding her about how much she had to drink.

Thing of it is she had nothing to drink. She'd been with me for like 10 hours prior, and there was no alcohol in the car. I know because she was driving my car, and I've never been drunk in my life.

[The Tao's Revenge]

I'm gonna let you be a guest of the county until I get it sorted out.

And if it turns out there's an innocent reason for your suspicions you'll undo whatever damage that arrest did to the person's life right?

If you're a guest of the county you can't go to work so that can lose your job. You'll find them another job of equal pay, labor, and benefits right?

[buttonjockey308]

I'd rather that the bad guy gets away than the the cops think they're some kind of soldiers who get to color outside the lines. The 'bad guys' are not 'guerillas', and you are not a soldier.

Of course you understand that the example of soldiers and guerillas was meant to draw a parallel between people who are trained and sworn to follow the rules of both society and their jobs and those who operate every single day refusing to adhere to any rules other than gravity and the laws of physics.


To say nothing of the innocent people who are harmed, imprisoned or killed in the process.

This happens, it's horrible, but if you can think of a better system, please, come on down

What actually happens is that the blue wall shows up to protect the cop and he gets a paid vacation for gunning down a 90 year-old grandmother who did nothing more wrong than try to defend herself from a home invasion because the cops lied about an informant so they could get a no-knock warrant.

Stop with your histrionics already, a cop took an Xbox from a known felon who now likely has it back, nobody shot down an innocent grandmother :rolleyes:

Yet here you are, basing your opinions on what you take as facts from a pro-cop message board.

You're believing the news, I'm taking BOTH into account. Just because the message board is pro-cop, that doesn't make it automatically wrong, does it?

So is it OK if I grab some of your property that I think you should prove you didn't steal, throw it in the trunk of my car and forget about it so that you can't have it back?

If you are in a position to do so and I am in possession of materials that are suspicious in nature, that would be your right. As far as forgetting about it, let's just say that's the case, are cops human? Are they not entitled to forget things? Jesus

I see how it is. The notion that Hillman is presumed innocent of this crime goes out the window for you because he's been previously convicted of other crimes. Yes, you are supposed to take Hillman at his word, unless you have actual evidence that in this case he is lying. You don't. I don't give a shit if he took a shit on a cop's head 7 years ago. That doesn't mean he stole an Xbox last week.[/QUOTE]

Listen, I didn't say he wasn't, just that I'm inclined to take the word of a police officer over the word of someone who's been in jail three times for everything from battery to a police officer to posession of cocaine. I don't trust people with an extensive and/or violent criminal history not to lie to me, in an official capacity or not. I don't know your background, but you sound like you have absolutely NO situational awareness at ALL about surviving on the street. Tell you what, we'll both go to florida, I'll find the cop and give him my xbox to hold onto, you find Hillman and give him one of your posessions you like, let's see who gets theirs back

[E-Sabbath]

You don't remember the 90 year old grandmother who got shot down because of a no-knock warrant on her house? Asika's neighbor?

[MisterThyristor]

You don't even need RICO. With civil forfeiture, it's possible to just sue the item and then it becomes the responsibility of the (now disputed) owner to prove that it was not involved in a crime.

I'll pre-empt demands for "cite" with a link (warning, pdf): United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. currency (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf). I hope that money had a good lawyer!

With civil forfeiture, it doesn't even have to be your property. In the case of John Bennis, he was convicted of solicitation of a prostitute from a car belonging to his wife. The State of Michigan has a forfeiture law which says that an automobile used to solicit prostitution can be seized by the state. His wife took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that it was wrong for the state to seize property belonging to her when she was not involved in the commission of the crime. The Court, in effect, basically said that she should be more careful who she loans her car to, and that the state was within its rights to seize the car.

Cite: http://www.answers.com/topic/bennis-v-michigan

[Mosier]

Robbing people with the excuse of the drug war has become pretty common, so apparently yes.

It's kind of funny how I knew who wrote that before I glanced up at the name.

[buttonjockey308]

You don't remember the 90 year old grandmother who got shot down because of a no-knock warrant on her house? Asika's neighbor?

Actually, I didn't, but tragedy though it was, it's not germane to this case, Not saying there isn't a LOT of room for improvement in LE, but this is a molehill made a mountain by those who already have their minds made up.

[E-Sabbath]

You do remember that the no-knock warrant was on information that a snitch gave the cops, that the cops told the snitch to give them?

[DrDeth]

You do remember that the no-knock warrant was on information that a snitch gave the cops, that the cops told the snitch to give them?

That was never conclusively shown. And her age and gender is meaningless, as she managed to shoot down a number of cops before they killed her. A elderly woman with a gun is as dangerous as a fit young man with a gun.

Not to mention that there were some drugs there, IIRC. If you read Freakonomics you discover quite a few young drug dealers live with their (non-dealing) Mothers: "So why do drug dealers still live with their mothers? Because most of them don't make much money. Based on unbelievably detailed records of an actual Chicago neighborhood gang, Levitt found that, while the leader (who's now in jail) made $100,000 a year (tax free) over four years, his officers made only $700 a month and his foot soldiers made only $3.30 an hour, less than the minimum wage. "They had no choice but to live with their mothers."

[E-Sabbath]

That was never conclusively shown. And her age and gender is meaningless, as she managed to shoot down a number of cops before they killed her. A elderly woman with a gun is as dangerous as a fit young man with a gun.


I may be wrong here, but as I understand it, she never actually shot at a cop. All the injuries were from ricochets from police bullets.

But I'd have to find that thread to verify. I'm pretty sure that the no-knock was spawned out of complete fabrications, though.

[E-Sabbath]

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/51151/
Documents Reveal: Cops Planted Pot on 92-Year Old Woman They Killed in Botched Drug Raid


hey found no drugs on Sheats, but came up with a use for the pot they found earlier.

They wanted information or they would arrest Sheats for dealing.

While Junnier called for a drug-sniffing dog, Smith planted some bags under a rock, which the K-9 unit found.

But if Sheats gave them something, he could walk.

Sheats pointed out 933 Neal St., the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston. That, he claimed, is where he spotted a kilogram of cocaine when he was there to buy crack from a man named "Sam."


Still, Smith, Junnier and the other officer, Arthur Tesler, according to the state's case, ran with the information. They fabricated all the right answers to persuade a magistrate to give them a no-knock search warrant.

By 6 p.m., they had the legal document they needed to break into Kathryn Johnston's house, and within 40 minutes they were prying off the burglar bars and using a ram to burst through the elderly woman's front door. It took about two minutes to get inside, which gave Johnston time to retrieve her rusty .38 revolver.

Tesler was at the back door when Junnier, Smith and the other narcotics officers crashed through the front.

Johnston got off one shot, the bullet missing her target and hitting a porch roof. The three narcotics officers answered with 39 bullets.

Five or six bullets hit the terrified woman. Authorities never figured out who fired the fatal bullet, the one that hit Johnston in the chest. Some pieces of the other bullets -- friendly fire -- hit Junnier and two other cops.

The officers handcuffed the mortally wounded woman and searched the house.

There was no Sam.

There were no drugs.

There were no cameras that the officers had claimed was the reason for the no-knock warrant.

Just Johnston, handcuffed and bleeding on her living room floor.

That is when the officers took it to another level. Three baggies of marijuana were retrieved from the trunk of the car and planted in Johnston's basement.


Junnier will face 10 years and one month and Smith 12 years and seven months. No sentencing date was immediately set, and the sentences are contingent on the men cooperating with the government. Arthur Tesler, also on administrative leave, was charged with violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process. His attorney, William McKenney, said Tesler expects to go to trial.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123632.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston
Furthermore, the federal probe into the police department revealed that Atlanta police routinely lied to obtain search warrants, including often falsifying affidavits


Might I inquire as to where you got your information, DrDeth?
Buttonjockey, I think this explains why some people might not trust policemen. What do you think?

[Bricker]

You don't even need RICO. With civil forfeiture, it's possible to just sue the item and then it becomes the responsibility of the (now disputed) owner to prove that it was not involved in a crime.

I'll pre-empt demands for "cite" with a link (warning, pdf): United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. currency (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf). I hope that money had a good lawyer!


From the very link you provide: Since the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that seized property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Forfeiture is warranted under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when the government establishes a “‘substantial connection’ between the property” and a controlled substance offense. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).

(Emphasis added).

[Snowboarder Bo]

Why am I thinking that a government that can invoke the commerce clause to jail people for growing marijuana for personal medical use in a state where that activity is legal will have little problem justifying seizures of property under the statute you quote, Bricker?

[Bricker]

Why am I thinking that a government that can invoke the commerce clause to jail people for growing marijuana for personal medical use in a state where that activity is legal will have little problem justifying seizures of property under the statute you quote, Bricker?

I don't know.

I can't decide how many ways the apparent assumptions you're making are wrong. You've connected two widely dissimilar issues with groundless analogy.

The issue of medical marijuana is consistent with a much older decision with respect to growing wheat for personal, in-state use -- Wickard v. Filburn.

I'm not aware of any cases of seizures under the statute I mention that have placed the onus on the owner instead of the government. Are you?

[buttonjockey308]

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/51151/


http://www.reason.com/news/show/123632.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston


Buttonjockey, I think this explains why some people might not trust policemen. What do you think?

I think this is a great example of bad behavior by bad officers in one department, not an example of all officers everywhere. I think that drawing paralells between the shitheads from Georgia whose lies caused the death of that woman and the cop that took the poor felon, er, fella's Xbox invites the broad brush committee to paint until they're satisfied with the delivery of their message of how bad and evil the police are.

The facts are that most cops are honest people. If all cops were as corrupt and dirty as the people in this thread seem to suggest, things would be a LOT different for the average person who doesn't interact with the police on a meaningful level but once, perhaps twice in their lives. The bad guys, on the other hand, interact with the police almost daily. They know the game, they know the system, they know the rules and what it takes to survive on the street. Most importantly, they know how to make people pity them and their poor situations that they created and they perpetuate. The bad guys know you better than you do and can play you for all you're worth, and will do so if given the opportunity.

[catsix]

buttonjockey308 said:
Most importantly, they know how to make people pity them and their poor situations that they created and they perpetuate. The bad guys know you better than you do and can play you for all you're worth, and will do so if given the opportunity.

It's a common tactic with police to try and get people to see a black and white dichotomy. There are 'bad guys' and there are 'cops', who must then be 'good guys' if they are the opposite of 'bad guys.'

Only that's not really true. The 'bad guy' isn't always wrong, and the cop isn't always a 'good guy'. It's evident from your posts that you're trying to do exactly this with regard to Hillman by bringing up his prior bad acts. It doesn't matter that he's been previously convicted of other crimes. That has no bearing at all on this case.

He's a drug addict or she's a prostitute so obviously you better listen to the cop, because the cop is a fine upstanding citizen who only tells the truth.

Give me a fucking break. Cops lie and cheat all the time to get what they want. Many of them are proud of it, and will boast about their interrogation techniques. The bad guys will play you at any opportunity, huh? Isn't that exactly what cops do when they lie about evidence, or witnesses?

Trust the police? Not on your life.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath;10514110
Might I inquire as to where you got your information, DrDeth?
[/QUOTE]

What information? I said "IIRC" and evidently I mixed up that case with another after several years.

[buttonjockey308]

It's a common tactic with police to try and get people to see a black and white dichotomy. There are 'bad guys' and there are 'cops', who must then be 'good guys' if they are the opposite of 'bad guys.'

Only that's not really true. The 'bad guy' isn't always wrong, and the cop isn't always a 'good guy'. It's evident from your posts that you're trying to do exactly this with regard to Hillman by bringing up his prior bad acts. It doesn't matter that he's been previously convicted of other crimes. That has no bearing at all on this case.

He's a drug addict or she's a prostitute so obviously you better listen to the cop, because the cop is a fine upstanding citizen who only tells the truth.

Give me a fucking break. Cops lie and cheat all the time to get what they want. Many of them are proud of it, and will boast about their interrogation techniques. The bad guys will play you at any opportunity, huh? Isn't that exactly what cops do when they lie about evidence, or witnesses?

Trust the police? Not on your life.

:rolleyes:OK, you got me. I was using my words in a cunning and manipulative attempt to convince you of something my 18 years of experience and training tells me is true more often than not; that it's better to trust a cop than a drug dealer or crack head or thief or rapist or mugger or...

The difference in your jilted and twisted view is that I not only see some cops as the "good guys" but I see Joe/Jane Citizen as the "good guys" too, worthy, in fact entitled to all the protection I can give them. I see people like Hillman as "bad guys" who need a constant reminder that the wolves are at the door and to keep his toes on the line.

There IS a "black and white" dichotomy with shades of gray, if you regularly do things that are so against the law you do not one, not two, but three turns in jail, you are a bad guy. If you sell some dope to feed your family because you can't find a job, you get out, work your way back into society and redeem yourself by going and staying straight and on the right side of the bars, you're a good guy who did a bad thing. Shades of gray. I has them. Hillman is at least too stupid not commit crimes to stay out of jail and at most a career criminal. In either case, I don't trust what he says. Sue me.

Do the cops always tell the truth? Nope. Know why? They're people. People lie which means cops lie. Sometimes it's for a horrible reason and horrible things happen as a result. Sometimes though, it's to catch a bad guy. See, it's a tried, true and may I add Supreme Court approved tactic to lie to a suspect, to trick him or her into confessing something they obviously did. Dirty trick? Maybe. Does being able to do so give the police an [gasp] advantage over lawless criminals and societal malcontents? Sure does. So what? The criminals are ALREADY breaking the law, lying, scheming, whatever, sometimes you've got to reach down to where they are to get ahold of them. Sometimes not, but you've got to have the option if you're going to effectively pursue the bad guys.

Good to know the law enforcement community can put you on the pay no mind list, next time you're in trouble, call a crack head.

[casdave]

" think this is a great example of bad behavior by bad officers in one department, not an example of all officers everywhere"

We also have to think that there is quite a lot of leeway between what you say, and what you are defending against.

Those particular officers in that particular case did not just wake up one morning and decide how they were going to obtain the warrant on this one unique occasion.
More likely, they knew all the steps they needed to ensure they got the no-knock warrant through having done this before, it would probably not be far from the truth to find that this was not an irregular ocurrance, and definately not the first time they had played fast and loose.

Seizure of a persons assets without justifiable cause is also playing fast and loose with the law, is exactly why the police have constraints placed upon their behaviour, it would not be a stretch to say that every single silly little technicality that has been put in place, was done so to protect the public from police who have played fast and loose.

The more you push the envelope boys, the harder the walls become, because ultimately the police themselves can also break the law in their enforcment of it.

If you want the police to have greater flexibility when enforcing the law, then the ones who push that envelope are also your enemy, because they will be the ones who ensure measures are brought in to control you - simply becuase you cannot be trusted to control yourselves.

Suspicion, even extreme suspicion, is not evidence.

[E-Sabbath]

I think this is a great example of bad behavior by bad officers in one department, not an example of all officers everywhere.


Furthermore, the federal probe into the police department revealed that Atlanta police routinely lied to obtain search warrants, including often falsifying affidavits


Why should we believe that Mr. Hillman was a thief?

[E-Sabbath]

What information? I said "IIRC" and evidently I mixed up that case with another after several years.

Groovy, all good. Sorry, I get a bit pedantic sometimes. The specifics of the case are as clear an account of systematic and planned misuse of police powers as I can think of, and, as I'm always listening for something new, I want to have all my ducks in a row before I cited it again.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I don't know.

I can't decide how many ways the apparent assumptions you're making are wrong. You've connected two widely dissimilar issues with groundless analogy.

The issue of medical marijuana is consistent with a much older decision with respect to growing wheat for personal, in-state use -- Wickard v. Filburn.

I'm not aware of any cases of seizures under the statute I mention that have placed the onus on the owner instead of the government. Are you?

Nope, I'm not aware and I'm not gonna research it atm. I'm busy frying other fish.

I'm just saying that an organization that will twist words and logic the way the feds have with respect to the commerce clause would have little trouble finding ways to get the result they want re: seizures and forfeitures with (or despite) the statute you cited, IMO.

[DMC]

I'm not aware of any cases of seizures under the statute I mention that have placed the onus on the owner instead of the government. Are you?You might not remember, but we've gone over this before. I'll remind you of your comments the last time we talked about forfeiture laws, and how much they allow the government to fuck people over.

Your second link is persuasive: there are apparently seizures going on systematically in violation of the law, including a systematic practice of filing criminal charges only when the seizures are contested, suggesting that the practice is retaliatory.

This is state, not federal; and not New York, still, it makes your point very well, and I agree with you now.

Now, it might very well be possible, even likely, that you'll eventually get your shit back, assuming that everyone on the government side abides perfectly by the law, that you don't allow yourself to be intimidated, that you aren't wrongfully charged simply because you contest the forfeiture, etc., but it doesn't change the fact that there are systematic abuses within the system that aren't nearly as easy to overcome as it is being made to appear. It also doesn't change the fact that seizures are pretty close to a "presumption of guilt", when we like to think that our legal system follows "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat."

[ed]

From the very link you provide:

(Emphasis added).

My mistake, and I appreciate the correction.

[Bricker]

Nope, I'm not aware and I'm not gonna research it atm. I'm busy frying other fish.

I'm just saying that an organization that will twist words and logic the way the feds have with respect to the commerce clause would have little trouble finding ways to get the result they want re: seizures and forfeitures with (or despite) the statute you cited, IMO.

This is not an argument remarkable for either cogency or factual support.

[Bricker]

You might not remember, but we've gone over this before. I'll remind you of your comments the last time we talked about forfeiture laws, and how much they allow the government to fuck people over.



Now, it might very well be possible, even likely, that you'll eventually get your shit back, assuming that everyone on the government side abides perfectly by the law, that you don't allow yourself to be intimidated, that you aren't wrongfully charged simply because you contest the forfeiture, etc., but it doesn't change the fact that there are systematic abuses within the system that aren't nearly as easy to overcome as it is being made to appear. It also doesn't change the fact that seizures are pretty close to a "presumption of guilt", when we like to think that our legal system follows "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat."

I'm only correcting the claim that the onus is on the owner of the property to prove he (or his property) is innocent. Do not mistake this minor correction for my wholesale endorsement of the forfeiture system.

[DMC]

I'm only correcting the claim that the onus is on the owner of the property to prove he (or his property) is innocent. Do not mistake this minor correction for my wholesale endorsement of the forfeiture system.When you have to sue the government to get your property back (http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence?

[Snowboarder Bo]

When you have to sue the government to get your property back (http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence?

There ya go, Bricker. :D Ask and ye shall receive! Praise Bob!

Any second now, I expect you will either abandon posting in this thread, or try and claim that this is different somehow. Prove me wrong or prove me right.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Hey Bricker! Check this one out!

'Did I Just Get Robbed?' (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835)

On Oct. 20, 2005, Gonzalez says he was driving south on U.S. Highway 281 from Austin to Brownsville to look at a car and buy a gravestone for his dying aunt. Gonzalez, who owns a car lot, was carrying $10,032 in a briefcase.

<snip>

The deputies handed Gonzalez a waiver: If he signed over the money and did not claim the currency, he could walk away free. If he did not sign the waiver, he would be arrested for money-laundering. Gonzalez signed the waiver and gave up rights to his money.

"So at that time we got in our car and we left, still trying to figure out what just happened. We got officers that took our cash. We got officers that told us we can't get an attorney. So I'm thinking, are these guys officers of law? Did I just get robbed of my money?"

Gonzalez hired an attorney, who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. The county fought it, and lost. In April, the county returned his $10,032 and paid him $110,000 in damages, plus attorney's fees.

Had to sue to get his money back. Taken from him. Seized under the very statute you quoted. Falsely.

At this point, you're probably wondering if you can get away with saying that one or two cases "isn't statistically significant". Go ahead, try that and one out for size. :D

btw, it only took a quick google for "cash seizures" to come up with this hit, on the first page.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Yo! Bricker!

The courts are in on it now too!

Court: No evidence of crime? Cash seizure OK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/)

Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a man’s car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

<snip>

“We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates ... that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense,” the court wrote. “We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking.”

So just like the commerce clause is cited whenever there is cause to maybe think that possibly something might in the future affect interstate commerce in some way, now it's ok to seize cash because it might, at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs.

[Bricker]

When you have to sue the government to get your property back (http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence?

No, if somehow the owner has to sue to get her money back, then you're right.

Unfortunately, it's unclear to me whether she needs to sue. She apparently HAS sued, but is she simply trying to force the government's hand? That is -- is there already an asset forfeiture suit by the government against her? Was it completed with a finding against her? Is it still pending? Or are you suggesting the government simply took the money and said to her, "Sue us to get it back!" in blatant violation of the existing law?

[Bricker]

Hey Bricker! Check this one out!

'Did I Just Get Robbed?' (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835)



Had to sue to get his money back. Taken from him. Seized under the very statute you quoted. Falsely.

Well, no. They seized the moeny because he waived his right to it.

In other words, they "followed" those statutes; he surrendered his claim to the money.

Of course, the way in which they compelled him to execute that waiver was highly illegal.


At this point, you're probably wondering if you can get away with saying that one or two cases "isn't statistically significant". Go ahead, try that and one out for size. :D

btw, it only took a quick google for "cash seizures" to come up with this hit, on the first page.

How many cash seizures happen every week?

Claiming that one, two, or ten incidents since the year 2000 represents The Way It's Done is a gross error. I bet I can find ten incidents of cops planting evidence on suspects; I don't hear too many people saying that this is the ordianry state of affairs.

[Bricker]

Yo! Bricker!

The courts are in on it now too!

Court: No evidence of crime? Cash seizure OK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/)



So just like the commerce clause is cited whenever there is cause to maybe think that possibly something might in the future affect interstate commerce in some way, now it's ok to seize cash because it might, at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs.

Except that the standard is not, as you claim, "...at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs..." It's unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court's opinion: "...there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense."

[Mr. Krebbs]

It's unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court's opinion: "...there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense."

Judging by the information in the article, I think it is disturbing that the court came to this opinion. It seems to me that the judges in question based the decision on the facts that the narcotics dog smelled traces of drugs and that Gonzolez had lied about being arrested for DUI, carrying cash and about who the vehicle had been rented by. I sincerely hope that there were more facts presented in the case but excepted by the news article. Otherwise, the whole situation disgusts me.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Except that the standard is not, as you claim, "...at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs..." It's unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court's opinion: "...there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense."

You left out part of the sentence.

We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates ... that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense

They believe. That's not a fact, Bricker. That's faith. And what is faith?

2. belief that is not based on proof

[Grumman]

They believe. That's not a fact, Bricker. That's faith. And what is faith?
I knew you were stupid, but that just takes the cake. It says right there that the belief was based on evidence!

[Bricker]

You left out part of the sentence.



They believe. That's not a fact, Bricker. That's faith. And what is faith?

There have been stupider comments posted on these boards.

But not many.

[Snowboarder Bo]

<shrug>

Ok, maybe I over-reached on that comment. :D

Still, without much digging I was able to find cases where the statute you cited was abused, and the onus was then on the citizen to prove their innocence and/or wrong-doing on the part of the state.

And as I predicted, your response was along the lines that it was "statistically insignificant".

How many cash seizures happen every week?

Claiming that one, two, or ten incidents since the year 2000 represents The Way It's Done is a gross error. I bet I can find ten incidents of cops planting evidence on suspects; I don't hear too many people saying that this is the ordianry state of affairs.

I never claimed that it was business as usual. I don't think anyone here did. But it does happen, and it should not.

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture)

Heck, we wouldn't even have this thread if it hadn't happened.

BTW, anyone heard anything more about the OP? Did he get his Xbox back? Or that being handled by the same person who is return Sarah Palin's clothes to the RNC?