3 ms·

I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure op

I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations. After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."' Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects? I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically, if the officer really wanted to search and was otherwise barred from executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.

MCRed 12y ago
By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate from its owner. This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.) That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants. In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!
- simoncion 12y ago
  > ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?

MCRed 12y ago

By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate from its owner. This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.) That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants. In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!

simoncion 12y ago
> ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?