Not sure if this is contreversial bank or cops, but the cops did the arresting, so I’ll haul them in, especially since:
Obviously a family of desperados; do you think having the name “Ali” had anything to do with it? (And yes, they are American citizens).
I don’t think the police are at fault here, at least for taking in Mr Ali - presumably the bank called and reported a likely forgery.
Hauling in the wife and daughter does seem a little over the top, but once both parents are in custody, informing the school that no one would there to be pick up the youngest son seems like a good thing.
Fair’s fair: the next time one of those cops tries to deposit a cheque, arrest that cop’s family.
They weren’t trying to cash the check. They weren’t even trying to withdraw funds. The bank had all the time in the world to determine if it was a forgery and, if it was, they knew exactly who deposited it.
I cannot believe, as a Nice White Lady, this would have EVER happened to me. Utterly incomprehensible.
Berkeley campus cops cited a hot dog vendor for selling hot dogs on campus without a permit. That’s one thing. But then the cops decided it would be appropriate to actually remove money from the guy’s wallet, which to me, is theft. A funding account for the vendor has raised multiple thousands of dollars since this video went viral.
Apparently they needed to seize the $60 for fear the funds would go towards the nefarious purpose of human trafficking. Hot dog vendors, biggest perpetrators, apparently. Those aren’t grade “A” beef franks, you know. Soylent green.
The real question is can the vendor pay a lawyer thousands of dollars ot represent him in court (for which there is a fee) and PROVE without any sort of reasonable doubt that those $60 were not ill gotten booty from selling marijuana infused human flesh hotdogs?
Hmmmmm??
People have made a GoFundMe for the man, and have already raised over $60k.
This is the issue. Did the cop enforce the law? Sure. He has the legal right to do all that, picking out this one guy out of the three he saw, ticketing him and taking his money. But he was uninterested in justice.
**
The people, not the cop, are the reason for justice here.** THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
Oh, I agree - but that is on the bank. If someone from a bank calls the police and says “we’ve got a forged check here and we’re stalling the guy”, I’d expect them to show up and probably arrest me. It’s particularly on the bank because the police were able to determine in not a lot of time that the check was indeed not a forgery.
The only FUBAR I see by the police is taking the wife and daughter in.
Agreed. The bank calls the police and reports a forged check, and that gives the police probable cause to arrest. I don’t expect uniform officers to have any particular expertise in making an independent determination about the validity of a check. The officers rely, reasonably, on the bank’s representations.
But like Folacin, I don’t see any facts adduced that give rise to probable cause to believe the wife and/or the daughter was involved in any crime. This assumes, of course, that Mr. Ali did not blurt out, “It wasn’t my idea, officers! It was my wife! And my daughter!” And since we now know that he was not, in fact, actually presenting a forged instrument, such a spontaneous confession seems. . . unlikely.
That said, his detention was brief. If it were him alone, I’d say he had no hope of recovery whatsoever against the police. And against the bank, we’d have to know what specifically made the bank suspicious in my rider to judge how reasonable such suspicions were.
But unless the police have some undisclosed basis for the arrest of Ms. Ali and younger Ms. Ali, I suspect those two both have some recourse.
Several months after the alleged act, the long arm of the Arizona law caught up with me by telephone at my home in Northern Ontario, Canada, for allegedly bouncing a US dollar account cheque used to pay for a stay at a national park in Colorado.
Some numbnuts in the park’s employ tried to cash the cheque at an Arizona train station, and the dumber than dog-shit sheriff couldn’t figure it out either, so he arranged for a warrant for my arrest.
Look, folks, just because dysfunctional cowboys used to ride about on horses robbing both banks and trains does not mean that banks and trains are the same thing.
I had to explain to the sheriff: DEPOSIT CHEQUES AT BANKS, NOT TRAIN STATIONS. TRAIN STATIONS ARE NOT BANKS.
If the money was seized as evidence, and the vendor given a receipt, and the procedures necessary for such seizure were followed, why is it theft? “To you?”
To me, I’d want to know if the officer observed the guy using a cash box or if he observed the wallet being used to store cash from transactions. I don’t think there’s a legal reason the wallet is sacrosanct, but from a practical perspective I’d picture a cash box with ill-gained receipts and a wallet with personal funds, and it’s much harder to show that the wallet’s contents are subject to forfeiture. But that depends on things that happened before the video started rolling. If the officer were to say, for example, that he saw the vendor make change from his wallet, or move money between a cashbox and the wallet, or even that there was no cashbox and the vendor was working out of his wallet. . . those would make the seizure tend towards the reasonable side.
And although you don’t mention this next point, the videographer was apparently offended that the officer was engaging in selective enforcement: he passed by people openly drinking alcohol (also a violation) but cited the vendor. And my response to that is: so what? Requiring permits for food vendors is important for different reasons, health-wise, than enforcing open-air alcohol consumption laws. Police are entitled to set priorities.
Now, lots of things could change my reaction here. More detail about the officer’s observations prior to the citation; learning that the officer did not properly document his seizure; learning that other vendors report seizures of cash with no receipt or documentation; learning that there are specific laws or policies that govern such seizures in this department or this jurisdiction that the officer did not follow. . . all of these would tip my reaction in a different direction.
Yes. But since that’s not the “real question,” or even a relevant inquiry, he’d be ill-advised to try.
What happened then? Did you get a copy of the warrant? Do you know it was withdrawn or quashed?
This sounds suspiciously like trying to get all the facts before becoming outraged. Do you have some sort of publication that you create and distribute on a reoccurring basis that I could sign up for?
I saw the video. The cop had the guy’s wallet and took the cash out of the wallet. I didn’t see (or at least didn’t notice) him writing any kind of receipt. If he did, I didn’t catch it.
I suspect he was planning to keep the 60 bucks for himself. Also, I don’t think “civil forfeiture” laws were intended for this (I think the way they are enforced is already criminal anyway).
Hopefully with 60K dollars in Fund Me money, the guy will go get a legal permit now. But maybe not (?)
I saw a 2:26 video that ended with the encounter still going on, so I can’t conclude that no receipt (or other documentation of the seizure) was provided. Do you have a more extensive video that suggests otherwise?
I doubt he was planning to keep the money for himself, since he was already aware he was being viewed by a vocal critic before he took the money. But regardless of our respective suspicions, the only thing that matters is: did the police conform their conduct to the law? If you don’t like forfeiture, your complaint is with the legislature re, not the police.
It could be both. The legislature gives the police the power to do what they did, but the police also have discretion whether or not to exercise that power. The police rightfully bear some burden of the complaint. Seizing the funds is not some fait accompli.
Indeed, forfeiture in legal theory (the legislature’s fault) is a lot more defensible than forfeiture in practice (the police and DA’s fault).
In theory, a person doesn’t get their stuff stolen unless there is PC to connect it with a crime and pursuant to one of the statutory bases for forfeiture. They can then go to court and challenge that connection and get a hearing before a neutral judge who will decide. Oh, and in theory, the burden of mistaken forfeiture would fall on all citizens regardless of race.
In reality, in many places, if you get stopped with more than $20 bucks in your pocket and you fit some profile then you get robbed. You were in a high crime area with too much cash to explain, you see. And then you go to court, taking the day off work to get your $100 bucks back. But the DA continues the case. You do it again. Another continuance. Does the DA have to ask a judge for this rescheduling? Nope. The third day comes, and no continuance. But…still no judge. Instead, the DA issues you interrogatories demanding all kinds of sworn answers and receipts about how you got your $100 cash. Maybe you submit that and show up a fourth time (though at this point, you’ve wasted more money than you stand to gain by victory). Then, and only then, might you get to see a judge who will decide your case. A cop will testify that you’re probably a drug dealer but they couldn’t make a charge stick. You will testify that you are not. The judge will rule for the cop. Oh, and you’re black or Latino. Because that’s who the cops feel comfortable robbing, most of the time.
Do you blame the legislature for this injustice? Sure, a little. They do empower the police and DAs to do this, ultimately. But most of the fucked-upness of the system is not the fault of the legislature.
But you just told us:
So why can’t we complain about police when they exercise their discretion?
Because asset forfeiture of less than $40,000 is illegal in the state of California.
I don’t have other video, I was remarking on what I saw and didn’t see in the same video as everyone else saw. I can’t conclude no receipt was given, and I also can’t conclude that it was. I will ASSUME it was legal and he gave a receipt -this time. But, I am a cynic.
I don’t like forfeiture laws and the way they are being used (misused). I DO intend to factor that into my voting. I blame the legislators for creating such a “critter”, but I can and will also blame police who get caught misusing it - and that has happened. This time, I don’t know.