NJ Man has 22k wrongly confiscated in Tenn.

[vjf915 456]

1. most people don't know their rights and will answer the question.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

2. if you exercise your rights the cop will make you pay for it by busting your chops or keeping you there all day. I've never met a cop (even those I'm friends with) who isn't a dick in that way. It's an abuse of power. Perhaps not the question but certainly punishing someone for exercising a right when they aren't even breaking the law... that's abuse of power.

Doing their job is abuse of power? That's a new one. In layman's terms, the job of a police officer is to FIND CRIMINALS. Unfortunately, criminals don't approach cops and admit to everything they've done. Therefore cops need to look for them, and ask question to find them.

 

They have in the past and they did so recently with the help of the gov, no less.

Link to prove your accusations?

 

This whole issue is a double edged sword which NOBODY here is willing to admit. You're all giving cops sh*t for asking questions, yet if they let a REAL criminal go because they didn't investigate enough, you'd all be in an uproar. Hop off your high horse and try the job out before you knock those who do it every day.

[Soju 153]

Doing their job is abuse of power? That's a new one. In layman's terms, the job of a police officer is to FIND CRIMINALS. Unfortunately, criminals don't approach cops and admit to everything they've done. Therefore cops need to look for them, and ask question to find them.

 

No, but hassling people for no justifiable reason other than that they can, is. And the job of peace officers is to maintain the peace. Sure they can ask questions. That is their right. But detaining someone, or intentionally making it a pain for someone, because they don't like the answer, or don't get an answer, is an abuse of authority, and it is done as such, under the color of law. It is upsetting that you may think this is okay. I hope I misread that.

 

The whole issue issue is a double edged sword which NOBODY here is willing to admit. You're all giving cops sh*t for asking questions, yet if they let a REAL criminal go because they didn't investigate enough, you'd all be in an uproar.

 

It is close to a double edged sword, but I would rather a criminal go free than in innocent person be jailed...but that is just me. Lots of people would rather the opposite, and I think that is a shame.

[Murphy4570 15]

Link to prove your accusations?

 

I'm not aware of anything recent, but you won't find any significant internet sources for past transgressions of banks (I don't consider Wikipedia to be a valid source). You'll have to look in books for that information. The internet was not around in 1929, remember. That is more of a knock against fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve than anything else, though.

[Old School 611]

You want to know why you and Jules receive flack for some of your posts? Well there is why. If something is legal, it is legal, it it doesn't matter what the heck the reason is, it isn't any of your business. Your lack of respect for others is why people don't respect you in these matters.

ipb.global.registerReputation( 'rep_post_484268', { domLikeStripId: 'like_post_484268', app: 'forums', type: 'pid', typeid: '484268' }, parseInt('') );

 

 

+1

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I knew 2 guys that traveled to Florida with almost 40K in cash to buy van. Should they be arrested and the money taken too?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

It's not an evasive answer, it IS the answer to the question, because it is none of your damn business. So you are in fact, "being a dick".

 

 

 

 

Not a stupid comment, but a disgusting response by you. The fact that you feel special because you have perceived authority and it should allow you to get the answer to any question you want is a problem. You want to know why you and Jules receive flack for some of your posts? Well there is why. If something is legal, it is legal, it it doesn't matter what the heck the reason is, it isn't any of your business. Your lack of respect for others is why people don't respect you in these matters.

 

Just so we don't keep going with this us and them theme, I would not put Joe and Jules as being the same at all. Now Joe did say and I think it was his first response that you have to take the totality of the situation into account. Do I think Joe would go fishing, not at all, may have been the way some things were written sound, however probably a lot different than what would happen in a traffic stop with him.

 

One thing I am for is our rights, 1st and foremost, and none of them should ever be violated at all, however I'll say based on what actions and how someone answers some questions may raise suspicion. I know joe isn't out to violate peoples right and I could probably name a few other current or retired LEO's here on this board who would only do something if it was really warranted, it's the few, very few that would abuse this and make the others look bad.

 

Just think how many people you may know or heard of that would have never had an issue until they talked them selves into problems. Yes we have rights, we DO NOT have to give them up, but we really don't have to test the limits of what is legal and what is not in ever situation. Remember the song, "I fought the Law, well we all know the next line, and it doesn't matter how it finally ends, some times things are just not worth the hassle and no I am not talking about our rights.

 

Just something to think about.

[raz-0 1,259]

Just have the casino write you a check. I've done this in both Vegas and AC. No charge.

 

 

 

I don't think that amount would arise any suspicion. I can only speak from my own experience. If you were some gangbanger with a bit more in small bills it might be construed that was from drug sales.

 

The agency I worked for was involved in enforcing currency laws. Just about every Federal agency has jurisdiction in this area. I remember when these bs currency seizures with no arrest were started mostly down south. Under Federal and what I know of NJ money laundering laws you have show relationship between the money and a crime. Some of those bs money seizures were based on a narcotics dog alerting on the money. The fact is just about every $100 bill that has been out. In circulation for a little bit will wind up with trace amounts of illicit drugs on it.

 

Also one of the signs of a well trained dog is that... you know.. they can sit on command, not just when they smell drugs or other things.

[vjf915 456]

It is close to a double edged sword, but I would rather a criminal go free than in innocent person be jailed...but that is just me. Lots of people would rather the opposite, and I think that is a shame.

Neither of those outcomes are terribly appealing, but we're not talking about jailing an innocent person. We're talking about asking someone questions. The issue here is that nobody knows if the person is innocent or a criminal until they answer the questions. How is the officer supposed to know without asking questions?

 

Let's take it a step further. Let's say there's a man pulling a 4 year old girl by the arm. The little girl is crying, and asking the man to let her go. Is the man breaking any laws? Well if he's the little girls father, and the little girl is just throwing a temper tantrum, then no he's not breaking any laws. But if he's a stranger and is kidnapping her, then yes he's breaking a law. Should an officer just let him go because no laws are being broken? NO, he should ask a couple questions. This man with $20k cash could have been on his way to buy a car, which would have been legal. Or he could have been on his way to buy a large amount of drugs, which would have been illegal. The officer determines which based on the answers received by his questions.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not justifying the taking of this mans money, that's completely wrong. I'm simply trying to point out not only the harmlessness, but the reason that officers ask questions.

[Qel Hoth 33]

 

Neither of those outcomes are terribly appealing, but we're not talking about jailing an innocent person. We're talking about asking someone questions. The issue here is that nobody knows if the person is innocent or a criminal until they answer the questions. How is the officer supposed to know without asking questions?

 

Let's take it a step further. Let's say there's a man pulling a 4 year old girl by the arm. The little girl is crying, and asking the man to let her go. Is the man breaking any laws? Well if he's the little girls father, and the little girl is just throwing a temper tantrum, then no he's not breaking any laws. But if he's a stranger and is kidnapping her, then yes he's breaking a law. Should an officer just let him go because no laws are being broken? NO, he should ask a couple questions. This man with $20k cash could have been on his way to buy a car, which would have been legal. Or he could have been on his way to buy a large amount of drugs, which would have been illegal. The officer determines which based on the answers received by his questions.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not justifying the taking of this mans money, that's completely wrong. I'm simply trying to point out not only the harmlessness, but the reason that officers ask questions.

 

Completely different situations.

 

A child fighting and screaming to be let go is RS in and of itself a crime may be taking place.

 

Carrying a "large" amount of cash on your person is not RS in and of itself.

 

Also, refusal to answer questions one is not obligated to answer, as well as refusal to give consent to search, do not constitute PC.

 

 

You would agree that the consequences of letting the guy with "too much" cash go and the guy with the fighting child are quite different, would you not?

[Shane45 807]

"Based on your evasiveness and the large quantity of money a judge most likely will give me a warrant."

 

The only way your getting a warrent based on that is if you the prosecuter and the judge all play golf together every sunday! I seriously doubt that evasiveness and a lot of cash is enough to establish a basis to believe a crime is present. I have carried up to 30k on my person.

 

Aside from that it is pretty clear that this town is running a tourist trap of sorts and is plainly dispicable/criminal if all events and details as reported are accurate.

 

 

In the end it is always your right to say I dont wish to be detained, am I free to go?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I would have gone strait to the nearest PD and filed a report that i was robbed.

[vjf915 456]

You would agree that the consequences of letting the guy with "too much" cash go and the guy with the fighting child are quite different, would you not?

 

Yes, a kidnapped child is FAR worse than a drug deal. However the examples are far from different. In fact, I believe it's much more common for children to cry, than it is for people to carry $20k. If a child is crying, chances are they're simply unhappy because they didn't get what they want. With today's technology, if someone's carrying a large amount of cash, there's a good chance they're up to no good. Yes there's legal reasons to be carrying that much cash, but there's quite a few more instances where someone would be carrying that cash for illegal purposes. Again, we're not talking about arresting someone or how these police officers are "legally" stealing large amounts of cash...we're simply talking about asking questions.

[PeteF 1,044]

if someone's carrying a large amount of cash, there's a good chance they're up to no good. Yes there's legal reasons to be carrying that much cash, but there's quite a few more instances where someone would be carrying that cash for illegal purposes. Again, we're not talking about arresting someone or how these police officers are "legally" stealing large amounts of cash...we're simply talking about asking questions.

 

Well lets play word substitution here:

 

If someone's carrying a gun large amount of cash, there's a good chance they're up to no good. Yes there's legal reasons to be carrying a gun that much cash, but there's quite a few more instances where someone would be carrying that gun cash for illegal purposes. Again, we're not talking about arresting someone or how these police officers are "legally" stealing your gun large amounts of cash...we're simply talking about asking questions.

 

No law was broken they have no reason to even ask if he was carrying cash. The cop could ask, and be ready for a none of your business answer. He had ZERO reason to take the cash, and I see a large lawsuit settlement coming this guys way.

[RubberBullets 65]

 

No law was broken they have no reason to even ask if he was carrying cash. The cop could ask, and be ready for a none of your business answer. He had ZERO reason to take the cash, and I see a large lawsuit settlement coming this guys way.

 

They made him sign a hold harmless agreement not to sue the PD as a requirement to get his money back. Wonder if that would hold up?

[Soju 153]

Neither of those outcomes are terribly appealing, but we're not talking about jailing an innocent person. We're talking about asking someone questions. The issue here is that nobody knows if the person is innocent or a criminal until they answer the questions. How is the officer supposed to know without asking questions?

 

No, but we are talking about quasi legal robbing of an innocent person. Having money is not illegal. So it doesn't matter.

 

 

Let's take it a step further. Let's say there's a man pulling a 4 year old girl by the arm. The little girl is crying, and asking the man to let her go. Is the man breaking any laws? Well if he's the little girls father, and the little girl is just throwing a temper tantrum, then no he's not breaking any laws. But if he's a stranger and is kidnapping her, then yes he's breaking a law. Should an officer just let him go because no laws are being broken?

 

As you said, in one scenario, there is nothing illegal, in the other, there is. So they are in fact two quite different things, and your last statement does not apply to scenario two. Kidnapping is illegal. I never said that there shouldn't be questions asked. I said that intentionally giving a hard time and hassling people because you don't like the answer to a question one is under no legal obligation to answer), is the problem. You can't (shouldn't) steal someones money because they don't tell you why they have it. If asked how much money you have on your debit card, on in your account, should they be able to steal it because you don't tell them? So what makes it being cash any different?

 

NO, he should ask a couple questions. This man with $20k cash could have been on his way to buy a car, which would have been legal. Or he could have been on his way to buy a large amount of drugs, which would have been illegal. The officer determines which based on the answers received by his questions.

 

As stated, sure, he can ask questions. Unless the answer is for something illegal, then there is no right to steal it. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is, has, or is going to commit a crime, there is not even any right to detain him past the traffic stop. And absent probable cause, a search and seizure is illegal.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not justifying the taking of this mans money, that's completely wrong. I'm simply trying to point out not only the harmlessness, but the reason that officers ask questions.

 

That is understood. I understand why questions are asked. I have no problem with that. The only thing I have a problem with is this notion that somehow you have to answer any question an officer asks, and that if you don't or they don't like the answer, it is because you must be a criminal or have something to hide. Could that be the case? Absolutely! But it also could just be something much simpler, that being you don't want to answer because it isn't their concern!

[Soju 153]

Well lets play word substitution here:

 

If someone's carrying a gun large amount of cash, there's a good chance they're up to no good. Yes there's legal reasons to be carrying a gun that much cash, but there's quite a few more instances where someone would be carrying that gun cash for illegal purposes. Again, we're not talking about arresting someone or how these police officers are "legally" stealing your gun large amounts of cash...we're simply talking about asking questions.

 

No law was broken they have no reason to even ask if he was carrying cash. The cop could ask, and be ready for a none of your business answer. He had ZERO reason to take the cash, and I see a large lawsuit settlement coming this guys way.

 

+1

 

Great analogy considering the forum we are on! Also, it is good because it is exactly the same thing (in some states that is).

 

 

They made him sign a hold harmless agreement not to sue the PD as a requirement to get his money back. Wonder if that would hold up?

 

I hope it wouldn't. I would think that it could be thrown out if shown that it was only signed under duress/coercion and that the theft of the money was illegal. But then again, are legal system is designed to protect the state and not individuals, so probably not.

[Qel Hoth 33]

The hold harmless probably wouldn't hold up. He surrendered the money under duress (do it or get a felony charge), and he signed the hold harmless under duress (sign it or don't get your money back).

[bry@n 195]

The hold harmless probably wouldn't hold up. He surrendered the money under duress (do it or get a felony charge), and he signed the hold harmless under duress (sign it or don't get your money back).

 

I'd sue either way.

[G115BA 0]

+1

+1

[M4BGRINGO 139]

How often do police ask the driver where they are coming from and where they are going to? I doubt it is often. I have been asked late at night and simply answered the question. I bet the LEO's ask because if the driver is under the influence they may take awhile to answer them, or it they are up to no good, same thing, may not come-up with an answer. I would bet the LEO's are trained for this sort of thing. Never been asked during the day. Then again. I have only been pulled-over a few times in my life anyway.

 

Still would like to know how the police would know if you are carrying a large amount of money unless it is visible on the seats or floor.

[stever 16]

"Still would like to know how the police would know if you are carrying a large amount of money unless it is visible on the seats or floor."

 

 

Hmmmm...he offered him half of it so the leo would hurry up with the stop?

[O-gre 7]

How did they find out about the cash in the 1st place? Why would anyone disclose it?

[PK90 3,573]

How often do police ask the driver where they are coming from and where they are going to? I doubt it is often. I have been asked late at night and simply answered the question. I bet the LEO's ask because if the driver is under the influence they may take awhile to answer them, or it they are up to no good, same thing, may not come-up with an answer. I would bet the LEO's are trained for this sort of thing. Never been asked during the day. Then again. I have only been pulled-over a few times in my life anyway.

 

THIS +1

 

The questions are asked of a suspected drunk driver or suspicious vehicular actions that are the reason for the stop.

 

A stop for a 'normal' traffic violation does not warrant questioning. It even says that right on the ticket book. Do not question or lecture the driver. State your name, the reason for the stop, and issue the appropriate action.

 

This being said, I did not read the article, so I do not know what circumstances were involved.

[RS1200XL 4]

THIS +1

 

The questions are asked of a suspected drunk driver or suspicious vehicular actions that are the reason for the stop.

 

A stop for a 'normal' traffic violation does not warrant questioning. It even says that right on the ticket book. Do not question or lecture the driver. State your name, the reason for the stop, and issue the appropriate action.

 

This being said, I did not read the article, so I do not know what circumstances were involved.

 

I must always look suspicious then, since every time(including having a tail light out....) I have been stopped I have been asked.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I wonder what the cops response would be if you told him i'm heading from point A to point B. Something tells me he would either get a good laugh, or be seriously ticked off.

[GRIZ 3,369]

 

 

Also one of the signs of a well trained dog is that... you know.. they can sit on command, not just when they smell drugs or other things.

 

 

The best trained drug dogs continue to alert (usually by pawing) and continue to do so until they are rewarded. Bomb and agriculture dogs sit. If you have a dog trained for drugs, bombs, and k9 the dog will do okay in all but excel at none.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

I wonder what the cops response would be if you told him i'm heading from point A to point B. Something tells me he would either get a good laugh, or be seriously ticked off.

 

Officer, I am going from where I was to where I want to be next............

 

Yeah, that will go-over well!

 

Doubt a drunk could come up with that line. If I was the LEO I would laugh, finish what I was doing, and tell the driver to have a nice day!

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Si I guess I can't use any of these??? LOL

 

1. I can't reach my license unless you hold my beer.

 

2. Sorry officer, I didn't realize my radar detector wasn't plugged in.

 

3. Aren't you the guy-from the Village People band?

 

4. Hey, you must have been doing 125 to keep up with me. Good job.

 

5. I though you had to be in relatively good physical shape to be a police officer.

 

6. I was going to be a cop, but I decided to finish high school instead.

 

7. Bad cop, no donut.

 

8. You're not going to check the trunk are you?

 

9. Gee, that gut sure doesn't inspire confidence.

 

10. Didn't I see you get your butt kicked on COPS?

 

11. Wow, you look just like the guy in the picture on my girlfriends night stand.

 

12. Is it true that people become cops because they're too dumb to work at McDonalds?

 

13. I pay your salary.

 

14. So uh, you on the take or what?

 

15. Gee officer, that's terrific. The last officer only gave me a warning.

 

16. Do you know why you pulled me over? Okay, just so one of us knows.

 

17. I was trying to keep up with traffic. Yes, I know there are no other cars around, that's how far ahead they are.

 

18. What do you mean, "Have I been drinking?" YOU'RE the trained specialist.

 

19. Well officer, when I reached down to pick up my bag of crack, my gun fell off of my lap and got lodged between the brake and the gas pedal, forcing me to speed out of control.

 

20. Hey, is that a 9mm? That's nothing compared to this 44 magnum.

 

21. Hey, can you give me another one of those full cavity searches?

 

22. No, YOU assume the position.

 

23. I'm surprised you stopped me, Dunkin Donuts is having a 3 for 1 special!

 

24. If I bend over, will I still get a ticket?

 

25. No, offi, offic, lucifer...I'm not as think you are drunk I am. I swear to dog.

 

26. No, I don't know how fast I was going. The little needle stops at 110mph.

 

27. Back off Barney, I've got a piece.

 

28. But officer, I've got 2 different drivers licenses from 2 different states! Pick ONE!

 

29. I know I was weaving, but I was trying to hit all the little green men!

 

30. On the way to the station, let's get a six pack, oh and don't forget the cigs.

 

31. Come on, write the stupid ticket, the bars close in 20 minutes!

 

32. Hey, wasn't your daughter a porn queen?

 

33. How long is this going to take? Your wife is expecting me.

 

34. So that's what those yellow flashing lights in the school zone mean?

 

35. What do you use those rubber gloves for anyway?

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Joe, which of the above has Ray Ray used on you?

[RobertJames 14]

My personal favorite: "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"Yep."

"Why are you in such a hurry?"

"My ex wife ran off with a cop. I was afraid you might be trying to bring her back."

 

End of hijack.