Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

bill limiting the ability for police to 'confiscate' property

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    bill limiting the ability for police to 'confiscate' property

    http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...lNumber=SB0891


    In a nutshell this bill will require the police to obtain a warrant if they want to confiscate property. And when property IS confiscated it has to be documented etc.


    I'm glad really. From what I've been told about the drug crime in some of the big cities, the cops haven't really been trying to STOP the crimes... they've just been arresting people as they leave the city, confiscating assets etc. It's been described as a "shakedown" rather than an attempt to stop or deter drug crimes.


    I can only hope they do this in KY too. IIRC we had a recent raid on a store in the next down over for dealing drugs. ... and I remember reading in the news that the police "confiscated" money from the ATM too.


    Yep from the ATM??? I'm still trying to figure that one out. ... cos at this point it sounds more like someone got greedy.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    This is good. I'm a lot less trusting of cops than I used to be. They should not have this much power, especially in the name of some stupid "war" on drugs.

    Comment

    • #3
      What we need is a change in the law prohibiting their *keeping* confiscated property unless either the item is inherently illegal to possess or the owner is found guilty of a crime involving it.
      "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by HYHYBT View Post
        What we need is a change in the law prohibiting their *keeping* confiscated property unless either the item is inherently illegal to possess or the owner is found guilty of a crime involving it.
        except that once they possess it, it's harder to get it back. Especially if they don't keep a tight control on what they took.



        Plus around here... one of the towns is notorious for including other businesses in their "raids".

        I mentioned on CS that an adult store was raided. What I didn't include was that - at the same time, they also raided a pizza/tanning salon in another town... because it had the same owner.

        The news reported how much was found in drugs... but not specifically which store it was taken from. No warrant either.

        Comment

        • #5
          If the ATM took deposits, which some do, they could have taken the money to test it for drugs.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by PepperElf View Post
            In a nutshell this bill will require the police to obtain a warrant if they want to confiscate property. And when property IS confiscated it has to be documented etc.
            Honestly, I'm more appalled they were allowed to do that in the first place.

            Up here the cops document everything and then sell your shit to fund community and social help programs if you end up being guilty. Its both hilarious and effective. Bought your car with drug money and used it to sell drugs? Welp we're gonna sell it and give the money to the community you were dealing in. Hell, the cops have an eBay site here.

            But they can't just randomly seize shit from a place of business just because you own it or anything and they certainly can't do anything without a warrant. They can't seize things unless they were directly involved in a crime.

            What in the world is going on down there? -.-

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
              Honestly, I'm more appalled they were allowed to do that in the first place.
              They weren't.
              Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Aethian View Post
                If the ATM took deposits, which some do, they could have taken the money to test it for drugs.
                That wouldn't tell much. An amazingly high proportion of paper money has traces of drugs on it, largely because bills touch each other and spread it around.
                "My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                  They weren't.
                  Then why do they need this bill? -.-

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
                    Then why do they need this bill? -.-
                    Because politicians believe if they create enough laws about the same stuff, people will all of a sudden stop breaking the law.

                    It's standard practice among law enforcement to keep a chain of custody for ALL evidence. If evidence is handled and the chain of custody isn't maintained, the evidence is immediately inadmissible in court. Are you telling me that if they make yet another rule on this stuff, the corrupt cops who weren't following the rules will all of a sudden start being good? Right...
                    Last edited by Greenday; 04-09-2013, 03:26 AM.
                    Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post
                      Then why do they need this bill? -.-
                      It's not exactly that there's no "crime" but rather they tack "suspicion" on to unrelated crimes. Technically even the "fishing expedition" the cop ran on the man was legal in the story below - cos the man gave him permission to search. Underhanded, but legal. The driver should have said "no" but I don't know how that would have turned out for him.

                      http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18...or-profit-case

                      In the web example:
                      Man was speeding. But he wasn't doing anything with drugs; he had a lot of cash on him but there's no report of drugs ever being found in his car. Just suspicion of his "intent", and the suggestion that his prior drug arrest (20 years prior, no conviction) meant he was possibly guilty. The officer decided that much money HAD to be drug related. And since the man couldn't "prove it was legitimate" to carry that much money, then it must be guilt. And the money was "confiscated"

                      In this case though the man DID have proof - he had his winning bid on ebay. He was driving to pay for it.

                      He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

                      That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

                      "It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.
                      Last edited by PepperElf; 04-09-2013, 04:00 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PepperElf View Post
                        And since the man couldn't "prove it was legitimate" to carry that much money, then it must be guilt. And the money was "confiscated"
                        What a bunch of bullshit! I thought we were "innocent until proven guilty", meaning that the law would have to prove that there WASN'T a legitimate reason. This country is going to hell.
                        --- I want the republicans out of my bedroom, the democrats out of my wallet, and both out of my first and second amendment rights. Whether you are part of the anal-retentive overly politically-correct left, or the bible-thumping bellowing right, get out of the thought control business --- Alan Nathan

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Wow, that's....yeah.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Yep.


                            part of the issue is the mentality that the innocent have nothing to hide and therefore should comply with police requests to search.

                            i've seen cases where investigators (fishers!) used that reasoning to try to get someone to agree to a search without a warrant. and many people don't even think to question it.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by PepperElf View Post
                              Yep.


                              part of the issue is the mentality that the innocent have nothing to hide and therefore should comply with police requests to search.

                              i've seen cases where investigators (fishers!) used that reasoning to try to get someone to agree to a search without a warrant. and many people don't even think to question it.
                              I used to think that way, then I thought, why the hell should they waste my time searching my car to just try to randomly get lucky? If they REALLY want to search my car so badly, they can get a warrant. Luckily I've never had a cop ask to search my car.
                              Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X