I grant the possibility… but no, I don’t believe that the average cop in that situation would steal $8000.
You haven’t proved your case.
If I say, “A person out jogging in the moring is usually murdered,” and when pressed, provide a cite to five cases of murdered joggers, surely you can see that I have not sustained my claim.
Of course it’s true that there are cops that are out and out crooks, and cops that simply don’t follow the law, as your links allege. How could it be otherwise?
And in this country, we have recourse: the very lawsuit that’s filed now against this practice. But how did you go from this case to “usually?”
But isn’t this exactly the reason why this law is problematic?
In real life, any cop who’ll try to apply it will follow this exact scenario. In other words, they’ll approach someone who looks like a latino and ask them if they’re immigrants. As far as I’ve read your arguments, they’d simply have to ignore the request and nothing would happen.
However, what usually will happen (with nationals, immigrants and illegal immigrants) is that they’ll give an answer that will immediately give the cop the opportunity to “develop more evidence”. Which even for citizens might be problematic (if they forgot to carry their id or something like that).
In an ideal world, where citizens know and use their rights perfectly, a law like this might be useful. In our world it’s problematic at best.
I didn’t say they would steal the money. I used the word confiscate meaning they would take it and turn it in according to the seizure law.
So there I was just cruising along the road at exactly the speed limit, minding my own business and 3 cops decide they are going to hassle me because they don’t like my looks. Which was a violation of my rights, correct?
So if they did this in Texas where they have no right to do so, do you think it will be any different in Arizona?
Actually, in a lot of those cases, the cops were following the law; it’s the law itself that is flawed.
I never claimed that I proved my case with these few newspaper articles. But every article I find is about someone losing their property, not getting it back.
I see that you’re straining for the “abscence of evidence” argument as a way to “disprove” what I said, but I’ll ask again: Can you show that I am wrong?
I’ve provided some evidence that at the very least suggests that I am right: police usually get to keep the property the confiscate under these asset forfeiture laws.
If you can provide some data that shows me I’m wrong, I’d be perfectly happy to look at it. If the data is from a reliable source and all, I’d have no problem admitting I was wrong. So, go: show me I’m wrong, Bricker. You wanna lay some money on it first?
Except that nationals will correctly answer, “I am a citizen,” when asked.
And if they answer “I am a citizen,” that does not give the officer reasonable suspicion to continue, so it’s reallt not relevant whether or not they have ID.
That wasn’t your original claim.
Your orginal claim was that they will usually confiscate the money, NOT that they will usually keep the money.
So for your new claim to be correct, you’d have to show that police win the majority of their asset forfeiture cases. I agree that they probably do.
To win your original claim, you’d have to show that police usually invoke asset forfeiture laws when finding money.
Sure, but let’s lay out which claim you’re defending.
Yes, if your story is true and they don’t have a better story. [i}Rashomon*-style. For example, they might be able to point to a radar reading that shows you were speeding, and unbeknownst to you, your speedometer was poorly calibrated.
Or… it’s not any different in Arizona right now, so how will this new law affect the situation at all?
Nope, you’re wrong. You’re wrong about what my initial statement was, and you’re wrong about it being different now.
My first statement:
And you’ll see from some of the links I provided later, btw, that individual officers actually have been rewarded with cash because of the property/cash that they seized.
My 2nd statement:
pertinent parts (helpfully) bolded
So, as you can see, in both cases I said the same thing: keep.
I’m still willing to be persuaded I’m wrong if you have anything to show, but merely declaring me to be wrong because I don’t have 1 all-encompassing, comprehensive cite isn’t going to convince me.
So far, the preponderance of evidence backs up my statement, and as we’ve noted on this board, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, necessarily.
So go ahead, Bricker: convince me I’m wrong. Show me some stats that contradict me.
Probably.
But who guarantees the officer won’t follow up the question with a “show me your papers, please, sir”? Especially if the respondent seems to be a bit nervous or has a slight accent or what have you?
You say (and I believe you) that any subsequent interaction by the officers isn’t exactly lawful. But, like CBEEscapee points out (and numerous incidents prove) officers can and do abuse their power to extend lawful interactions into not-so-lawful territory. People seldom follow up these actions in court because, after all, who needs the hassle of court dates, court costs, etc. ?
It’s become circular. **Bricker **will now tell us:
-
A court won’t sustain these unlawful detentions by a LEO, so
-
these things never happen. But
-
if they are happening already, why should we care about yet another law under which they can still happen?
This is the one I disagree with. You say they were hoping to find cash, which they get to keep, usually. That is not true. They do not get to usually keep the cash they find.
This one, I agree with. If they actually confiscate it, then, more often than not, they get to keep it.
Of course, the reason that they get to keep it, more often than not, is because it was properly seized and not challenged, or because the challenge was unsuccessful.
I don’t doubt that there are times when they improperly keep cash seized, but that is not a majority of the cases.
Yes, you did. But the two statements were different because the first one says every time the police FIND cash, they keep it; the second one says every time they SEIZE cash, they keep it.
Yes, I’ve said that.
No, never said that.
Yes, said that.
Sigh… 
You can say what you wish, after all it is your opinion which may be right or wrong. Now I’ll give my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that the Corpus Cristi cops would have seized my property. And the chances are very low that I would have gotten it back if I challenged.
But how much of the original 8000usd would I have wound up with after going to all of the expense to challenge, even if I prevailed? I live in another country, I would have to hire a lawyer and make how many trips to the USA? The cops in Texas realize this and that probably makes it even more likely they will take my money.
And how does one keep something one does not possess? Ah, that’s right one would have to possess it first, so one would have to (try and keep up here) seize it.
This isn’t a court, Bricker. You’re only fooling yourself if you think you scored any points with this.
So now, AGAIN (hehe, see what I did there?): can you prove me wrong? Can you provide a preponderance of evidence to show me I’m wrong? Can you even provide a single bit of evidence to show me that I’m wrong? Let’s see your cite(s).
I appreciate your concern for my image.
But I’m pretty confident that what I’m saying is clear to most readers.
If they find cash, they usually keep it is a completely different claim from If they seize the cash under the asset forfeiture laws, they usually keep it.
I can’t prove you wrong about the second claim, because you’re right.
I can might be able to prove you wrong about the first claim, but as the proponent of the claim, it’s up to you to provide evidence in favor of it, and you haven’t. In fact, it’s not clear if you’re still standing behind it.
So before I undertake to prove anything, why don’t you clearly restate your claim?
Why is that?
I mean, as I read the law, they would have to show you were guilty of a criminal offense, or that you didn’t contest the seizure. Earlier we had a cite for a lawsuit against a different department, but are you contending that all cops everywhere will simply abuse the asset forfeiture laws?
Your gripe about the Arizona law then becomes, “This is a bad law because most cops, everywhere, abuse their authority.”
Is that a fair statement? I don’t think it is.
I don’t know. I guess it depends on what rationale the cops used to seize the money in the first place. I mean, if they found it next to a ledger that said: “Paid Hector $2,000 for heroin / Got $10,000 from Andrew for heroin = $8,000 profit!” then I’d say they would be justified in seizing it.
Because you appear to be the only person who didn’t understand it.
I’ve reposted them both now, and in my opinion I said the same thing twice. The fact that you deliberately choose to interpret what I said in a manner that is divergent from my stated intent (and my interpretation of my own words) is your problem to deal with here, not mine.
ETA: No, Bricker, you aren’t going to “lawyer” your way out of being wrong on this one. You can keep trying, but it isn’t helping you.
OK, let me explain by example the difference.
Let’s say that there are 1,000 cases in which the cops find cash while searching a car.
Let’s further say that in 100 of those, they seize it. The other 900 times, they don’t.
Now, in those 100 asset forfeiture cases, 85 of them result in the cops keeping the cash. 15 of them result in the cash being returned to the person from whom it was seized.
If those facts are true, then your first statement is wrong: the cops do NOT usually keep the cash they find. They found cash 1,000 times but only kept it 100 times.
But your second statement is true: after seizing it, they usually keep it: they seized cash 100 times and kept it 85 times.
Do you now see the distinction?
So – which set of facts best fits what you said? The cops finding the cash in a search? Are you suggesting that if they found cash in 1,000 searches, they’d keep it 501 times or more?
Or are you suggesting that if they seize cash 100 times under the asset forfeiture laws, they get to keep it 51 times or more?