http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/justice/mississippi-highway-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Fake cop pulling people over in Mississippi and then shooting them dead.
Here’s another reason:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18…or-profit-case
Tennesee Police Take Money from out of State Drivers Because They Can
MONTEREY, Tenn. – “If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America.”
That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.
For more than a year, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has been shining a light on a practice that some call “policing for profit.”
See previous stories: “NC5 Investigates: Policing For Profit”
In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver – even though he had committed no crime.
“You live in the United States, you think you have rights – and apparently you don’t,” said George Reby.
As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.
“I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally,” Reby added. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.
A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.
“I said, ‘Around $20,000,’” he recalled. “Then, at the point, he said, ‘Do you mind if I search your vehicle?’ I said, ‘No, I don’t mind.’ I certainly didn’t feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money.”
That’s when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.
“Why didn’t you arrest him?” we asked Bates.
“Because he hadn’t committed a criminal law,” the officer answered.
Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.
“The safest place to put your money if it’s legitimate is in a bank account,” he explained. “He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it’s safer.”
“But it’s not illegal to carry cash,” we noted.
“No, it’s not illegal to carry cash,” Bates said. “Again, it’s what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for.”
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, “But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?”
“And he couldn’t prove it was legitimate,” Bates insisted.
Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don’t come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.
“This is a taking without due process,” said Union City attorney John Miles.
A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.
He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing “shall be ex parte” – meaning only the officer’s side can be heard.
That’s why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.
“It wouldn’t have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I’m not to hear from you – by statute,” Miles added.
George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that “I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn’t want to hear it.”
In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.
But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that “common people do not carry this much U.S. currency.”
Read Officer Bates’ affidavit
“On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine,” Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.
“Or the money could have been used to buy a car,” we observed.
“It’s possible,” he admitted.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?
“He did,” the officer acknowledged.
“But you did not include that in your report,” we noted.
“If it’s not in there, I didn’t put it in there.”
So why did he leave that out?
“I don’t know,” the officer said.
Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside “a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it.”
“That’s inaccurate,” Reby said. “I pulled out the bag and gave it to him.”
And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates’ affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.
That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.
“Were you convicted?” we wanted to know.
“No, I wasn’t convicted,” he answered.
But Officer Bates says that arrest – which he acknowledged was old – was still part of the calculation to take Reby’s money.
“Am I going to use it? Yes, I’m going to use it because he’s been charged with it in the past – regardless of whether it’s 10 or 15 years ago,” he said.
Attorney John Miles said he’s frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee’s civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.
“We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution – and nobody cares,” Miles said.
“Nobody cares.”
This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these “policing for profit” issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.
After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money – if he’d sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.
They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.
He got the check, but no apology.
“If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?” Reby said.
And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.
“I really don’t want to come back here,” he said.
As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.
It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.
And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.
He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money – $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.
Miles called that “extortion.”
“Policing for profit”
Should read, “policing for theft.”
Well, first thing you should know is that they’re not legally allowed to search your car without your permission or a warrant. You can always refuse a search.
Modern jurisprudence surrounding the issues of traffic stops, police detention and arrest is completely out of touch with reality. Courts have consistently ruled that the subject of arrest essentially has a duty to not only to comply but also to cooperate with his own arrest. Anything short of this is potential grounds for a resisting-arrest charge. This is all built on the “public safety” doctrine - police are just trying to restore public safety and peace as quickly as possible; if they arrest a few extra people, that’s no big deal. You might spend the night in a comfortable (ha!) cell and be released the next morning after the judge has a chance to take a look at the facts. In this way, your safety, the officers’ safety and public safety are all maximized.
This is all a fairy tale, of course. The fact is that any form of stopping, detaining or arresting is a kind of kidnapping and imprisonment. No one has the legitimate right to tell anyone else “you must stand here and not move”, let alone bind the person in handcuffs or cage them in a prison cell. In a private law society, I think detention would happen but it wouldn’t happen the way we have it today where anyone, anywhere is subject to arrest at any time for virtually any reason so long as the arresting officers claim it was “for public safety.” It would likely be more of a bond system and would exist to get someone who is being sued for a serious offense to agree not to flee until the suit has been settled. Unless the person in question is very rich and can afford to put up a massive bond, the terms of the agreement might include staying at one of Bob Murphy’s Hotel California Prisons for the duration.
The moment you abrogate this obvious, common-sense principle, you open Pandora’s Box to all sorts of extortionate behavior. Arrest in itself is a terrifying threat - it is a massive disruption of any person’s activities who isn’t a child, a retiree, a trust-fund baby or on welfare. In other words, everyone has someplace they need to be, by a certain time, or else. “I’m sorry, boss, I just couldn’t show up for the presentation because I happened to be walking through the park when there was a protest and the police arrested everyone for public safety. Consider losing this client as part of giving back to the community! You’re just doing your part to keep us all safe, boss…”
Clayton -
This guy wasn’t even arrested.
“If you’re not sure, ask for it” - isn’t it already too late by that time??
This is what just bugs the hell out of me about this police-state bullshit. Anybody can walk up to your front door, bang on it and yell “Police, open up!” or “Police! Get down! Get down on the ground!” after kicking in your front door. If you err on the safe side and use deadly force to defend yourself, you will be charged with murder.
As the US becomes increasingly authoritarian, there are bound to be more and more instances of this going on. These are good opportunities to spread the message - setting the tone of the debate in preparation is a good idea. “We called it” is a powerful argument, so just getting out there and making the predictions is an important step.
Clayton -
I think people should also study cases related to search and seizure, the fifth amendment’s protection against self incrimination and fourteenth amendment due process rights to understand just what their rights are and what circumstances might warrant a forced entry, a terry stop, an illegal forced entry etc.
In these cases of people impersonating officers, that’s a real toss up. You cannot know for sure if you’re dealing with a real cop or not right off the bat. Perhaps it will be too late by the time one finds out.
That’s exactly my point. There is this built-in assumption that either (a) the actual legitimacy of a purported authority is always instantly ascertainable or (b) it doesn’t matter, people must just obey, you have to break a few eggs if you want an omelette. I think the courts/law academics are more (a) and the legislature/police are more (b).
If you find (b) repugnant to decent society, then the question of (a) must be dealt with because it’s simply false. Determining officer legitimacy is crucial to personal safety and this determination simply cannot be performed in the circumstances of forced entry, detention by plainclothes - and in some circumstances, even uniformed officers - and so on. Traffic stops place the individual being stopped in a very vulnerable position and once the victim realizes he has been duped by an impostor, it’s too late, the impostor already has the upper-hand. Police tactics promote these vulnerabilities and the more heavy-handed the police become, the more vulnerable the public will become to impostors.
Clayton -
Any kind of stop places the person being stopped in a vulnerable position, whether it be in their home, at their place of work, walking down the street, while driving etc.
But how are police going to do their job if they can’t stop people?
I mean this is a trade off. The problem is that because they can stop people, there is the potential for abuse.
If they couldn’t actually stop people then yeah I guess no one could take advantage of that but then there would be no way for police to detain suspects or whatever.
In my mind, as unfortunate as this is, I’d rather cops be able to stop people and take the risk that there will be douchebags like these guys taking advantage than have a system where cops could not stop people.
That being said I hope they catch both of those dudes.
And of course, we all must democratically agree that this is a good trade off to make, or else… Whoever yells the strongest about making their “trade off” gets to impose it on everyone else. Makes sense.
That’s the name of the game. I dunno what else to tell you.
I know what to tell you - we happen to highly dislike “the game”, to the extent that we’re trying to end it. Make sense?
Edit: of course it does, because you already know full well about this.
“That’s the name of the game. I dunno what else to tell you.”
One of these days, there might be someone willing to fight you, guns in hands, to keep you from forcing your will on them. Just sayin…its happened before.
It’s always a possibility.
Though I doubt this issue in particular-as disconcerting as it is-will be the turning point but I do not have a crystal ball.
I dunno, ever hear of the Rodney King riots?
Sure.
So then you must realize that people have actually found the issue of police overstepping their authority to be disconcerting enough to riot?
Yes. As I said it’s always a possibility.
The facts of the two cases are very very different but for some people I suppose that might not matter.