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:
A Lifetime of Standing Kilkers Tall Sony .
PERFECT!
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”.
This allows them to take your money and / or property without due process, and assumes guilt, with no obligation to return it if you are not found guilty. To me this puts civil forfeiture squarely under the definition of legalized theft.
Redistribution of wealth from officer Bernie.
Big government feeding off public.
Not true Stanley, these cases will find there way into higher courts. When the do, all hell will break lose. Taxpayer will foot the cost too.
That’s why they call it CROOK county…
They work on the ASSUMPTION that if you’re carrying large sums of cash, your engaging in some sort of illegal transaction. 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 and the 6th amendments 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.”
Amendment 6 “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
The problem lies in the ambiguous term “unreasonable”. Just who decides what is reasonable? What is the standard of reason? That is never clearly defined. They also seem to like to ignore the term “probable cause”.
This allows them to take your money and / or property without due process, and assumes guilt, with no obligation to return it if you are not found guilty. To me this puts civil forfeiture squarely under the definition of legalized theft
Timothy Padilla yeah we have the same problem here
I have a family member who had only 4500.00 in cash Officer took the money and it took 2 weeks to get it back.