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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 I’m not all that inclined to believe.
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.
To say nothing of the innocent people who are harmed, imprisoned or killed in the process.
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.
Yet here you are, basing your opinions on what you take as facts from a pro-cop message board.
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?
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.
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.