We are living in a time when the due process protections of the Fourth Amendment are more important than ever.
Back in 2012, couple Adam and Jennifer Perry were speeding down an Illinois highway to reach a hearing specialist based in Salt Lake City, Utah who was supposed to treat an ear infection afflicting Adam. Their high speed drew the attention of state troopers, who pulled the couple over.
After a drug dog sniffed the Perry’s car, police searched their vehicle. They turned up empty-handed, with the only thing vaguely resembling the drugs they were looking for being a duffel bag that officers claimed smelled of marijuana.
But they found something else: $107,520 in cash, belonging to the Perrys’.
The officers let them go, but they kept the cash, even though the Perrys’ weren’t charged with a crime or even subject to a search warrant.
Read more about this unbelievable story on the next page:
This officer needs to be arrested and this couple get their money back with interest. Then I would sue him in civil court
It’s asset seizure and very legal in many states..even if no crime is committed. They only have to suspect you didn’t get your property or cash legally and they can confiscate it and don’t have to return it even if there are no charges or you’re found Innocent. It’s pathetic we’ve allowed this obvious corruption to exist.
Nice story
The pig, is just as much or more of a criminal. I call it theft.
They don’t care about anything but the money .
They work on the ASSUMPTION that if you’re carrying large sums of cash, your dealing drugs. Therefore they can take it regardless of your legal status, and not give you so much as a receipt. In my mind that clearly violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.
Amendment 4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The problem lies in the ambiguous term “unreasonable”. Just who decides what is reasonable? What is the standard of reasonable? That is never clearly defined. They also seem to like to ignore the term “probable cause”.
Why do people hate cops again?
They work on the ASSUMPTION that if you’re carrying large sums of cash, your dealing drugs. Therefore they can take it regardless of your legal status, and not give you so much as a receipt. In my mind that clearly violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.
Amendment 4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The problem lies in the ambiguous term “unreasonable”. Just who decides what is reasonable? What is the standard of reasonable? That is never clearly defined. They also seem to like to ignore the term “probable cause”.
To me this puts civil seizure squarely under the definition of legalized theft.
I know a waitress with over 100,000 in her safe at home.
They work on the ASSUMPTION that if you’re carrying large sums of cash, your dealing drugs. Therefore they can take it regardless of your legal status, and not give you so much as a receipt. In my mind that clearly violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.
Amendment 4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The problem lies in the ambiguous term “unreasonable”. Just who decides what is reasonable? What is the standard of reasonable? That is never clearly defined. They also seem to like to ignore the term “probable cause”.
To me this puts civil forfeiture squarely under the definition of legalized theft.