:smack:
I’m having trouble determining what the difference is between your suggestion and “seizing”
So let’s go with that for a moment. How is having money and acting nervous when stopped by police evidence that the money is linked to drug crimes?
Or how about this, how would you as a lawyer prove that your client’s money WASN’T linked to a drug crime?
I am perfectly happy to answer this inquiry.
But before I do, I want to insulate myself from the accusations offered by Little Nemo and k9befriender (among others) that all I am doing by answering is preventing the REAL discussion.
I’m not really sure I know how to do that. Suggestions?
That is part of the real discussion. Once you money is stolen by the cops, how can you prove it was NOT involved in a crime so that the preponderance of the evidence is on your side?
So here in the evidence against your client’s money:
- Had a lot of money.
- Headed to an area with known drug people.
- Acted suspiciously when cops wanted to search the car.
- A drug dog did something the cops say indicated a hit for drugs.
I apologize if my constructive criticism of your misunderstanding about what was being argued came across as an accusation. It was simply an observation that we often times are not on the same page, and are therefore talking past each other, oft times with increasing hostility. That is what detracts from the discussion.
I do my best in good faith to understand the arguments made by others in the thread, and to assume that they are meant in good faith. As long as everyone is doing that, we could have a great discussion. If I have a question on a term, or find someone’s misusing of a term bothersome, I use my words to explain the issue, rather than talking around it and expecting others to catch on to what my point it.
I could even point out in saint cad’s question to you, he asked how you would “prove” that it wasn’t linked to crime, and mention that he probably meant “what evidence and methods would you present to overcome their suspicion?”
One thing I like to point out here as well is that cops like to look for out of state cars for these forfeitures, as that adds a new level of difficulty in getting your money back. you can’t use your lawyer, or a lawyer in your areas, you need one that is licensed in the state the forfeiture happened.
What do you want to bet that if you have a computer with bitcoins on it that would be overwhelming evidence that you’re up to no good. After all why would any honest person use bitcoins when they’re printing new federal reserve notes every day.
I get what he means-- your money is “seized” in the sense of a search and seizure but it is not yet forfeit, as under certain conditions it would come back to you. Call it an impounding, if you will.
And I get that “cop has crappy evidence this is dirty money” would still be preponderant over “I’ve no evidence but my saying no-it-isn’t”…
If I understand it correctly, then police departments can directly benefit from the funds they sieze. This is incredible to me (assuming I understand it right), and provides an incentive for siezing funds from anyone they can get away with it for. If civil forfeiture is a useful tactic in fighting crime, then it should absolutely not provide any financial benefit to those doing the siezing.
You understand correctly.
*However *you act, it is evidence against you.
Not saying anything? Guilty.
Friendly? Guilty.
Nervous? Guilty.
And travel to that county’s court, often multiple times.
One statistic I am not able to find via Google is how much property that was seized by civil forfeiture gets returned.
Based on the number of horror stories, I suspect the number to be low but cannot find if that number is 10%, 20% or 80% of people who have their property seized are able to recover it.
Found my answer buried in the Washington Post article linked above:
I think that civil forfeiture should be added to the short list of practices that are historically proven to be so abuse prone- like bills of attainder and ex post facto laws- that it should be unconstitutional.
Unless I missed it, Bricker has not been back to prove the money WASN’T used in a crime.
Evidence is any information which assists the trier of fact in reaching a determination of the truth of any matter at issue.
“Having money,” is not evidence that the money is linked to drug crimes, but having large amounts of cash with no clear ancestry is. This is because almost all legitimate financial transactions of any appreciable size are usually handled by non-cash means. So when a person possesses large amounts of cash with no clear ancestry, it’s more likely that drugs are involved.
I’d show the ancestry – bank statements showing withdrawal, or ledger records reflecting the cash accumulation. And I’d adduce testimony from the other party involved; if my guy was buying a 1934 Brough Superior SS100 and the seller demanded cash, then I’d get the communications into evidence and the testimony that this was the reason for carrying $210,000.
The crud that goes on in Michigan with this process.
But you didn’t prove the $210,000 DIDN’T come from drug crimes. And don’t forget you acted suspicious when the cops asked to search your car. And the police testified that the dog indicated there were drugs.
So Bricker they still have the preponderance of the evidence. Looks like you just lost your $210,000
I think I have greater confidence in Bricker’s lawyering skills than you do. 