6 ms·

California Sheriff Free to Rob Armored Cars Money of Legal Marijuana Businesses

74 points by DocFeind 5y ago

mikece 5y ago
Why not just seize all cash from all armored cars regardless of what kind of business it is? I don't see the distinction from seizing the cash from a LEGAL marijuana business versus seizing it from Walmart. What law is being broken by the marijuana business or the cash-movers?
- ecf 5y ago
  This will happen as long as the ruling class is prevented from taking their cut of the pie due to it still being illegal at the federal level. They’re mad and bothered that lower classes are able to establish marijuana business in select states, so they have their posse (police) do their bidding.
  - foxyv 5y ago
    San Bernardino has been broke for years. They are paying most of the pensions for retired police so it's not a surprise they are pulling stuff like this. I guess they have the best police pension so most So. Cal. officers transfer there before retiring. Meanwhile, their city infrastructure looks like Steven King's "The Stand."
- tssva 5y ago
  There are no completely legal marijuana businesses in the US. All of them are in violation of federal law. This is why the money was transferred to a federal agency for the actual asset forfeiture.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?" Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.
    - mikece 5y ago
      > Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? 1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures. 2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible. Which it is technically accomplishing.
  - mikece 5y ago
    Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
    - r2_pilot 5y ago
      Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
    - sterlind 5y ago
      Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    - klipt 5y ago
      If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US. It's very much illegal at the federal level.
      - mikece 5y ago
        Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
        5y ago
mlazos 5y ago
The key is to have dummy trucks with no money driving staggered schedules. That will keep them occupied. Real talk though those audio recordings of the police commenting that “that’s all they got” has no place in this country.
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  Civil Asset Forfeiture has to be ended. It is completely infused with perverse incentive. It is a travesty.
  - thomascgalvin 5y ago
    If the money went anywhere except into the police coffers, the practice would end overnight.
- glennvtx 5y ago
  The key is to mortally wound a few of these robbers, to discourage the theft.
jagged-chisel 5y ago
> "Empyreal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that it has strictly complied with state medical marijuana laws," Holcomb writes. That’s not how “innocent until proven guilty” works. It’s the government’s job to collect evidence to prove the law was broken. Source: I served as a federal juror in the last six months. During voire dire, one juror said something like “well, yes - the defendant has to prove his innocence.” This got us a lecture from the judge: we must assume they’re innocent, and the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- tssva 5y ago
  This wasn't a criminal case or even a case asking for return of the funds. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. It was a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent future action by the sheriff's office. The burden of proof for a TRO always falls on the party requesting the TRO.
  - thomascgalvin 5y ago
    This is explicitly true, but also morally wrong. There is absolutely no reason the government should be able to take something from you, and then make you prove that they shouldn't have done so.
    - 0x7E3 5y ago
      I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich. If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States. To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
strangesongs 5y ago
Almost all of the SoCal police departments (LAPD, LASD, San Bernardino Sheriffs) are out of control, with massive, sprawling budgets (the city of Los Angeles gives more money to police than any other category and just added more money for the next year after their "defunding" in 2020) and a complete lack of oversight. Villanueva, in charge of the LA County Sheriff's Department, has refused to participate in basic oversight or accountability from the LA County Board of Supervisors and routinely oversteps his legal boundaries in dealing with issues (his bizarre "sweeps" in Venice, as one example). The police are an uncontrollable force in this country and will only grow more violent and brazen in their actions as public trust continues to erode.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  The police are only allowed to do what the law let's them. no knock warrants are not the police's fault. seizure of people's property is not the police's fault militarization of police is not their fault the police are literally using all the tools at their disposal that the law allows them to. Your frustration should be targeted at the politicians who are influenced by lobbyists and have their seats secured by gerrymandering who give the police these powers. the police are just easy targets for people's frustration
  - sterlind 5y ago
    The police guilds are lobbyists too. They fight tooth and nail to keep chokeholds, qualified immunity, extremely high bars for prosecution etc. And when they're not happy, they strike, which puts people in danger.
    - EdwardDiego 5y ago
      Huh, the Police in the US are allowed to strike? Must admit, that makes me realise some of the stereotypes I hold about American attitudes to unionism are in need of revision.
      - strangesongs 5y ago
sleightofmind 5y ago
Sadly, I live in this Sheriff's jurisdiction. It's embarrassing. And yeah, puns about his last name using a short "i" are in order. Civil asset forfeiture disturbs me. I mean it really, really disturbs me -- deep down in my gut. I have a hard time understanding how it is consistent with the values we (U.S. citizens) claim to hold. I'm not a student of the law, so I won't pretend to have any deep insights into its constitutionality. I just feel it's a malignant tumor on our justice system. I can only wonder how it appears to those in other developed nations, at least those whose laws do not allow such presumptive seizures. It doesn't seem all that far removed from the system of letters of marque that authorized so much piracy in the 16th century -- we can so we will. Honestly, I don't see how any fair-minded person can be anything but sickened by civil asset forfeiture.
frogperson 5y ago
One of the core tenants of our government is checks and balances. Why is there no panel of citizens with enough power to keep the police in check? I feel like if average citizens had the opportunity to effect the careers of policemen and women, then they would behave much better.
- 0x7E3 5y ago
  The policeman in question in a sheriff in California. That is an elected position, so about as directly answerable to the average citizen as it gets.

74 points by DocFeind 5y ago

Why not just seize all cash from all armored cars regardless of what kind of business it is? I don't see the distinction from seizing the cash from a LEGAL marijuana business versus seizing it from Walmart. What law is being broken by the marijuana business or the cash-movers?

ecf 5y ago
This will happen as long as the ruling class is prevented from taking their cut of the pie due to it still being illegal at the federal level. They’re mad and bothered that lower classes are able to establish marijuana business in select states, so they have their posse (police) do their bidding.
- foxyv 5y ago
  San Bernardino has been broke for years. They are paying most of the pensions for retired police so it's not a surprise they are pulling stuff like this. I guess they have the best police pension so most So. Cal. officers transfer there before retiring. Meanwhile, their city infrastructure looks like Steven King's "The Stand."
tssva 5y ago
There are no completely legal marijuana businesses in the US. All of them are in violation of federal law. This is why the money was transferred to a federal agency for the actual asset forfeiture.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?" Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.
  - mikece 5y ago
    > Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf? 1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures. 2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible. Which it is technically accomplishing.
- mikece 5y ago
  Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
  - r2_pilot 5y ago
    Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - klipt 5y ago
    If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US. It's very much illegal at the federal level.
    - mikece 5y ago
      Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
      - 5y ago

mlazos 5y ago

The key is to have dummy trucks with no money driving staggered schedules. That will keep them occupied. Real talk though those audio recordings of the police commenting that “that’s all they got” has no place in this country.

tanseydavid 5y ago
Civil Asset Forfeiture has to be ended. It is completely infused with perverse incentive. It is a travesty.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  If the money went anywhere except into the police coffers, the practice would end overnight.
glennvtx 5y ago
The key is to mortally wound a few of these robbers, to discourage the theft.

jagged-chisel 5y ago

> "Empyreal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that it has strictly complied with state medical marijuana laws," Holcomb writes. That’s not how “innocent until proven guilty” works. It’s the government’s job to collect evidence to prove the law was broken. Source: I served as a federal juror in the last six months. During voire dire, one juror said something like “well, yes - the defendant has to prove his innocence.” This got us a lecture from the judge: we must assume they’re innocent, and the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

tssva 5y ago
This wasn't a criminal case or even a case asking for return of the funds. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. It was a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent future action by the sheriff's office. The burden of proof for a TRO always falls on the party requesting the TRO.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  This is explicitly true, but also morally wrong. There is absolutely no reason the government should be able to take something from you, and then make you prove that they shouldn't have done so.
  - 0x7E3 5y ago
    I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich. If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States. To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.

strangesongs 5y ago

Almost all of the SoCal police departments (LAPD, LASD, San Bernardino Sheriffs) are out of control, with massive, sprawling budgets (the city of Los Angeles gives more money to police than any other category and just added more money for the next year after their "defunding" in 2020) and a complete lack of oversight. Villanueva, in charge of the LA County Sheriff's Department, has refused to participate in basic oversight or accountability from the LA County Board of Supervisors and routinely oversteps his legal boundaries in dealing with issues (his bizarre "sweeps" in Venice, as one example). The police are an uncontrollable force in this country and will only grow more violent and brazen in their actions as public trust continues to erode.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
The police are only allowed to do what the law let's them. no knock warrants are not the police's fault. seizure of people's property is not the police's fault militarization of police is not their fault the police are literally using all the tools at their disposal that the law allows them to. Your frustration should be targeted at the politicians who are influenced by lobbyists and have their seats secured by gerrymandering who give the police these powers. the police are just easy targets for people's frustration
- sterlind 5y ago
  The police guilds are lobbyists too. They fight tooth and nail to keep chokeholds, qualified immunity, extremely high bars for prosecution etc. And when they're not happy, they strike, which puts people in danger.
  - EdwardDiego 5y ago
    Huh, the Police in the US are allowed to strike? Must admit, that makes me realise some of the stereotypes I hold about American attitudes to unionism are in need of revision.
    - strangesongs 5y ago

sleightofmind 5y ago

Sadly, I live in this Sheriff's jurisdiction. It's embarrassing. And yeah, puns about his last name using a short "i" are in order. Civil asset forfeiture disturbs me. I mean it really, really disturbs me -- deep down in my gut. I have a hard time understanding how it is consistent with the values we (U.S. citizens) claim to hold. I'm not a student of the law, so I won't pretend to have any deep insights into its constitutionality. I just feel it's a malignant tumor on our justice system. I can only wonder how it appears to those in other developed nations, at least those whose laws do not allow such presumptive seizures. It doesn't seem all that far removed from the system of letters of marque that authorized so much piracy in the 16th century -- we can so we will. Honestly, I don't see how any fair-minded person can be anything but sickened by civil asset forfeiture.

frogperson 5y ago

One of the core tenants of our government is checks and balances. Why is there no panel of citizens with enough power to keep the police in check? I feel like if average citizens had the opportunity to effect the careers of policemen and women, then they would behave much better.

0x7E3 5y ago
The policeman in question in a sheriff in California. That is an elected position, so about as directly answerable to the average citizen as it gets.