Stop and seize

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Stop and seize - Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes

After the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the government called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America's highways.

Local officers, county deputies and state troopers were encouraged to act more aggressively in searching for suspicious people, drugs and other contraband. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice spent millions on police training.

The effort succeeded, but it had an impact that has been largely hidden from public view: the spread of an aggressive brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes, a Washington Post investigation found. Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

[bugo]

What do drugs have to do with securing the country from terrorist attacks? Legalize all of them. Crime would plummet.

[cpzilliacus]

What do drugs have to do with securing the country from terrorist attacks? Legalize all of them. Crime would plummet.

This is an example of theft by federal, state, county and municipal governments.

Like many other bad things in the United States, the origins of this can be traced back to the Reagan Administration.

[Brandon]

What do drugs have to do with securing the country from terrorist attacks? Legalize all of them. Crime would plummet.

This is an example of theft by federal, state, county and municipal governments.

Like many other bad things in the United States, the origins of this can be traced back to the Reagan Administration.

No, you have to go back further, to Nixon.  Nixon started this endless war on drugs.

[briantroutman]

Much further than that–the Harrison Act in 1914 (and various other federal actions in years prior). Though Nixon popularized the term, the War on Drugs is over a century old now.

[cpzilliacus]

What do drugs have to do with securing the country from terrorist attacks? Legalize all of them. Crime would plummet.

This is an example of theft by federal, state, county and municipal governments.

Like many other bad things in the United States, the origins of this can be traced back to the Reagan Administration.

No, you have to go back further, to Nixon.  Nixon started this endless war on drugs.

I agree - Nixon started the so-called "War on Drugs."

But the civil asset forfeiture started under Reagan.

[cpzilliacus]

Much further than that–the Harrison Act in 1914 (and various other federal actions in years prior). Though Nixon popularized the term, the War on Drugs is over a century old now.

Harrison Act, and then the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, among others. 

Utter and total failures.

[bugo]

What do drugs have to do with securing the country from terrorist attacks? Legalize all of them. Crime would plummet.

This is an example of theft by federal, state, county and municipal governments.

Like many other bad things in the United States, the origins of this can be traced back to the Reagan Administration.

Yup.

[Zeffy]

Though Nixon popularized the term, the War on Drugs is over a century old now.

And a colossal failure at that.

[cpzilliacus]

Part II of the Washington Post series: Police intelligence targets cash - Reports on drivers, training by firm fueled law enforcement aggressiveness

During the rush to improve homeland security a decade ago, an invitation went out from Congress to a newly retired California highway patrolman named Joe David. A lawmaker asked him to brief the Senate on how highway police could keep "our communities safe from terrorists and drug dealers."

David had developed an uncanny talent for finding cocaine and cash in cars and trucks, beginning along the remote highways of the Mojave Desert. His reputation had spread among police officers after he started a training firm in 1989 to teach his homegrown stop-and-seizure techniques. He called it Desert Snow.

The demonstration he gave on Capitol Hill in November 2003 startled onlookers with the many ways smugglers and terrorists can hide contraband, cash and even weapons of mass destruction in vehicles. It also made David's name in Washington and launched his firm into the fast-expanding marketplace for homeland security, where it would thrive in an atmosphere of fear and help shape law enforcement on highways in every corner of the country.

Over the next decade, David's tiny family firm would brand itself as a counterterrorism specialist and work with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice. It would receive millions from federal contracts and grants as the leader of a cottage industry of firms teaching aggressive methods for highway interdiction. Along the way, working in near obscurity, the firm would press the limits of the law and raise new questions about police power, domestic intelligence and the rights of American citizens.

[bugo]

Did he really compare drug dealers to terrorists?

[jeffandnicole]

Along the way, working in near obscurity, the firm would press the limits of the law and raise new questions about police power, domestic intelligence and the rights of American citizens.

[/quote]

Whenever I read lines like these, it basically says the media didn't do its job.  The media is supposed to be helping us keep the politicians and law enforcement honest.  While they are quick to tell us the latest celeb gossip, they have consistently over the past decade or two become very laxed in reporting and investigating anything worthwhile.

[vdeane]

Did he really compare drug dealers to terrorists?

That would explain why Border Patrol loves to search for drugs.

Along the way, working in near obscurity, the firm would press the limits of the law and raise new questions about police power, domestic intelligence and the rights of American citizens.

Whenever I read lines like these, it basically says the media didn't do its job.  The media is supposed to be helping us keep the politicians and law enforcement honest.  While they are quick to tell us the latest celeb gossip, they have consistently over the past decade or two become very laxed in reporting and investigating anything worthwhile.

But then they would lose the "inside access" needed to properly provide "exclusive" coverage on the biggest national stories, such as whether Obama's dog went to the vet or not!

[roadman]

Whenever I read lines like these, it basically says the media didn't do its job.  The media is supposed to be helping us keep the politicians and law enforcement honest.  While they are quick to tell us the latest celeb gossip, they have consistently over the past decade or two become very laxed in reporting and investigating anything worthwhile.

That's because, over the past twenty or so years, most news organizations have become profit centers, and cater to the lowest common demoninator to boost ratings - and thus ad revenue.  Plus, the types of issues you're talking about don't lend themselves to the 30 second sound bites - just another example of the dumbing dowm of society.

[cpzilliacus]

Part III (final): They fought the law. Who won? - Many drivers faced a long ordeal in court to try to get their money back from police

Mandrel Stuart and his girlfriend were on a date driving on Interstate 66 toward the District when a Fairfax County police cruiser pulled out of the median and raced after them. The cruiser kept pace alongside Stuart's old blue Yukon for a while, then followed behind for several miles before turning on its flashing lights.

The traffic stop on that balmy afternoon in August 2012 was the beginning of a dizzying encounter that would leave Stuart shaken and wondering whether he had been singled out because he was black and had a police record.

Over the next two hours, he would be detained without charges, handcuffed and taken to a nearby police station. He also would be stripped of $17,550 in cash – money that he had earned through the Smoking Roosters, a small barbecue restaurant he owned in Staunton, Va. Stuart said he was going to use the money that night for supplies and equipment.

The reason for the police stop: Stuart's SUV had tinted windows and a video was playing in his sightline. He was never charged with a crime, and there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But police took his money because they assumed it was related to the drug trade.

Stuart would have to fight the federal government for any chance of getting his money back.

"Why didn't he just give me a ticket?"  Stuart asked the prosecutor. "What was the reason for him harassing me as much as he did?"

Stuart's case is among 400 seizures from 17 states examined by The Washington Post to assess how the practice known as "highway interdiction"  has affected American drivers. Their experiences, gleaned from legal papers and interviews, contain striking similarities that underscore questions about police power in an era when security has often trumped the rights of individuals.

Many of the highway officers involved were trained in the techniques of interdiction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, some with financial support from the departments of Homeland Security and Justice. The officers were able to seize cash and have their departments share in the proceeds through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Police can also make seizures under their state laws.

[bugo]

There goes the government playing the 9/11 card again. 9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to the jackbooted thugs in the government.

[cpzilliacus]

There goes the government playing the 9/11 card again. 9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to the jackbooted thugs in the government.

"Security theater."

[Duke87]

What is absolutely mind-boggling to me is how it is considered acceptable to seize anything from an individual who is not convicted of any crime and isn't even arrested. How is that not "unreasonable search and seizure"?

What this basically amounts to is that traveling with a large sum of cash is grounds for having it confiscated even if you've done nothing else wrong. It's a goddamn racket.

[NE2]

Who cares, they're black.

[cpzilliacus]

What this basically amounts to is that traveling with a large sum of cash is grounds for having it confiscated even if you've done nothing else wrong. It's a goddamn racket.

Absolutely correct.  The lesson to be learned from this is that if a cop stops you for traffic-related reasons, once that is done, then it is time to leave. 

Ask the cop if you can leave, and if they say no, ask why.

Do not agree to wait around for another officer or a K-9, even if you have never had illegal drugs in your vehicle.

Do not agree to a consensual search.