Texas police shake down drivers, lawsuit claims

[Cryozombie]

.

So, all this stuff about needing PC to arrest or even reasonable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or contraband goes out the window under these circumstances.

.

So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.

 

[shesulsa]

Things look suspicious on both sides here. I wonder why someone who wanted to pay "cash" for an item wouldn't purchase a cashier's check? It's negotiable same as cash as are money orders. That said, I've paid $6000 cash for a car ... and transported it a special way. I've heard of others paying cash for a car then reporting the price as much lower to the licensing department to keep the tax low. Naughty, I know, but I think it does happen a lot.

I've known a handful of folks who actually walk around with a wad of cash - not ones, either.

I'm one of those "don't paint the whole town with the same brush" people and would say, as far as having large sums of cash on hand goes, just because YOU don't do it and most people who do won't admit to it, don't believe it's not possible unless you're doing something wrong ... it's a popularized opinion.

Of course it's not safe to bury your cash in coffee cans in the yard or hide it in your house ... how many people likely do this with the current economy?

As to the cops, I imagine they are limited in their ability to effectively do their job ... but one simply HAS to wonder when they seize and ... don't charge.

Texas ... it's the new California.

 

[Big Don]

My dad used to buy and sell fruits and vegetables. One night, he had a fairly horrific car accident (no injuries) The ambulance took him to the hospital and the police were asking me why he had $5700 on him in cash. I explained about him dealing mostly in cash and they asked if he was dealing drugs. ***DO NOT LAUGH IN THE COP's FACE*** they do NOT like it...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes, you are quite correct. However, it would seem to be a bit different to (as reportedly happened) to have a suspect sign a statement saying that they were surrendering their cash and valuables to the police and in return, the police would not seek to have their child taken away from them.

That's a bit more than the traditional "Your partner back there in the car just told me what happened. Why don't you tell me your side of the story before I decide to believe him and lock you up and let him go?"

I certainly understand that. There have been instances that I have told people that the consequences of their actions could lead to their children being taken from them. That is not what was reported in this instance though.

Could be. It's been a long time for me, but back in the day, it was the 'lunge area' that could be checked, and only for weapons. No prying open locked areas like the center console or the glove box if they were locked, and no searching the trunk, etc, without permission or a warrant.

Not the current case law. If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.

As to "PC," the officer still has to have PC to make the stop. You can't pull someone over and THEN develop PC for having stopped them.

True. But nearly every vehicle can be stopped for some violation. It isn't that difficult for an officer who knows their state's vehicle code laws to do.

If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc.
[/quote]

A detention by legal definition is not an arrest. Their is a difference. However, issuing them a citation is technically an arrest. As an example, I may stop someone for a vehicle code violation, and not issue them a citation. In that case, no arrest has been made, and legally it is a detention only.

If they're frisky you can certainly hook them up for your own safety. And as I mentioned, back in the day, you could search the lunge area of the car for weapons. That's about it. Doesn't give you PC to search the whole car or pry locked things open - unless the laws have changed since my day, and they might have.

Again, you cannot search the car for contraband, in the example that I gave. You are legally searching for the registration and insurance. If you happen to find something, then it is admissable because the original basis for the search was legal.

However, again - people keep saying "Yeah, these people were probably drug dealers." OK, let's say they are. The money still isn't 'drug money' unless it can be linked. Where are the drugs? Where is the 'hit' of a drug-sniffing dog on the money? Where is the arrest and where are the drug charges or the conspiracy to sell charges? This thing stinks. At best, we're saying the police are jacking drug dealers and keeping their money but letting them go to continue plying their trade. That's not right either.

It seems to me, from the sound of it, that these officers are not keeping the money and jewelry for themselves. If that were the case, the department would not be giving it back, because there would be nothing to give back.

I think it is more than likely that you have overzealous cops trying to catch bad guys. I have seen cops who take stuff. They don't then turn around and give it to the department.

So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.

I made no judgement on the right or wrongness of this issue. I simply told you what is.

However, I would suggest that you read the applicable case law on the issue. See Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, and Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.

The issue actually has less to do with the safety of the public as opposed to the safety of the officer in allowing a person back into a vehicle that he has previously ordered the occupants out of.

 

[Big Don]

Having the police give a 17 yr old $5700 CASH was probably a BAD decision...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Quote:
So in otherwords, we should just make the assumption we are living in a Police State, but it's ok, because its for our own protection.
I made no judgement on the right or wrongness of this issue. I simply told you what is.

Just a point for clarification - I did not make the statement above. I'm sure you didn't mean it to appear I did, but it looks in your quoting as if I did, so I need to correct that perception.

As to your point about the police not keeping the seized money and property for themselves, but instead turning it over to the department, you are quite right. However, this leads us back to the area of abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, where the police enthusiastically seize everything they possibly can - in some cases manufacturing the reasons for the seizures - in order that their department might partake of the booty.

Rather like pirates sharing the loot with the crew instead of taking whatever they can for personal gain. I believe I linked to a story about the police department that thought a margarita machine was an appropriate use of seized money for the department, another about a man shot to death in what the DA later said was primarily a search motivated by the local sheriff's department desire to seize his home (the sheriff sued the DA for saying that - and lost in court).

Legitimate arrests and seizures should frequently result in criminal charges. When there is a seizure and no criminal charges, it looks suspicious - just like people who happen to be pulled over carrying a large amount of cash. Even if the people whose cash and property were seized were all drug dealers, the department in question appears to have simply been taking their money and letting them go - to commit more drug crimes. That serves the public how?

Thanks for the update on the legal authority to search incident to a traffic stop. I didn't know that. I'll certainly make sure I have my license and registration and insurance papers on me if pulled over and asked to exit the vehicle.

By the way, you didn't mention if you could pry open locked storage areas in your search for a registration - can you? If so, and you find no contraband, are you or your department liable for damages? I realize that in the execution of a lawful search warrant, even if nothing is found, the police / municipality are not liable for damage done, but I'm curious about your traffic-stop searches.

I mean, if I were pulled over, made to exit the vehicle, and realized I'd left my registration in my car, I'd be kind of mad if you popped the lock on my glovebox and center console, especially if you didn't find any contraband. Or would you just take my keys off me without my permission?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Different jurisdiction, but... give a Border Patrol some lip, they'll dismantle your car as you watch, then toss you a toolkit and tell you to put it back together within the hour or they'll cite you for littering. (Story told to my by a US Border Guard back in the 90's)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Different jurisdiction, but... give a Border Patrol some lip, they'll dismantle your car as you watch, then toss you a toolkit and tell you to put it back together within the hour or they'll cite you for littering. (Story told to my by a US Border Guard back in the 90's)

Whole different set of rules, though. Border Patrol controls entry to the country. They can search anything they like before granting entry, no warrant required.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not the current case law. If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.

By the way, did some quick checking and found this:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Search+incident+to+arrest:+another+look-a054869000

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has recognized a police officer's authority to conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful custodial arrest. The scope of the search includes the person of the arrestee, personal items in his possession, the area into which the arrestee could reach at the time of arrest to retrieve a weapon, any means of escape, or destructible evidence, as well as a search of immediately adjoining areas for people posing a threat. The timing of the search of the person and personal items is fairly flexible; the area searches should be contemporaneous with the arrest. The objects of the search incident to arrest are weapons, any means of escape, and evidence of any crime the arrestee could destroy. This authority is predicated upon the dual concerns of officer safety and preservation of evidence for trial.

In Knowles v. Iowa, the Supreme Court emphasized that the warrantless search incident to arrest is triggered only by a lawful custodial arrest. Mere probable cause to arrest, or the citation process alone, are not sufficient to justify the search.

There may be more recent case law than this, but this is what I found and it jibes with what we were taught back in the day.

I'm not disputing your statements, but wondering if you happen to know of case law that would overturn Knowles?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Whole different set of rules, though. Border Patrol controls entry to the country. They can search anything they like before granting entry, no warrant required.

..and up to 100 miles in too. But, that's a different argument. (Course my worst BP run in involved an hour detainment over my artwork in Canada)

I think what the police do, depends on their jurisdiction, and their own nature. Here in WNY we had someone get tasered over refusal to provide a DNA sample (despite a sample being on file already, etc).

Going back to the original story, when I can, I pay cash. I don't answer ID questions, and I don't register warranties cards. I have a problem with "you have alot of cash" being suspicious. Yes, the bad guys do it, but in theory there's alot more good guys right? I mean, how far do you push suspicious?

"I heard him Jerry, he wiped front to back. Only the Mafia wipes like that, break down the door, we'll catch him with his pants down!"

I mean, draw the line somewhere.

I'm moving to Texas. I might be carrying a wad of cash. I might have a car full of electronics. I might have a huge amount of dvd's. I might have NY plates on the car. Gee, sounds like this podunk town would give me grief. Good thing I ain't gin through there. They might think I'm a crime lord, or an arms dealer (given the 20+ weapons I'll have in the car with me).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have a problem with "you have alot of cash" being suspicious. Yes, the bad guys do it, but in theory there's alot more good guys right? I mean, how far do you push suspicious?

Ditto.

I take it further. Too many people, in my opinion, are perfectly OK with police abuses as long as it appears to happen to bad guys. Too few people, in my opinion, stop to consider that if the police can break the law to catch bad people, they can break the law and do horrible things to you. That's why we have limits on police behavior - not to molly-coddle and protect criminals, but to protect innocent citizens.

There was once a popular saying, that it was 'better that a hundred guilty men go free, than that one innocent man go to prison'. I don't hear that much anymore, and I believe it is because a lot of people don't buy into it anymore. They see people like OJ and the like going scot-free and appearing to flout the law, and they see the police as having their hands tied by laws that protect criminals, and they want something done.

I understand the outrage, but it's a narrow and short-term viewpoint to encourage police abuses in the hopes more bad guys will be caught. What damages the civil rights of bad guys (and suspected bad guys) damages the rights of all of us.

If we can't see that, we're doomed.

The police have a difficult job to do, and they have to fight against criminals with one hand tied behind their backs, so to speak. But this is our system of laws, set up to protect us from the potential for abuse. It makes the police's job harder - it keeps us safer in our civil liberties.

Trading one for the other is not a good idea, in my opinion.

 

[MJS]

Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no. Clarification please. So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it? Can he ask what its for? Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.

As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much. Failure to signal. Thats enough right there for an initial stop. Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use. I was on a ride along with a cop. We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was. It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic. Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car. The reason? Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.

Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways. Is it always a sure shot? Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no. Clarification please. So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it? Can he ask what its for? Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.

To the best of my knowledge...

Let's say you get pulled over for a legit traffic stop. And the cop notices you have a big old bag of cash money in your back seat, open for the world to see. And let's say you're driving far from home on a backwater state highway that is known as a 'drug conduit'.

Is that suspicious? Yes. It is suspicious. And the courts recognize that the police have the right to do further investigation based on 'reasonable suspicion'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

But reasonable suspicion is not the same as probable cause. Probable cause can be developed as a result of an investigation brought about by mere suspicion.

However, in our example above, if you say "None of your business," to the police officer when he asks you want that money is for, he's pretty much stuck - unless he can develop his PC some other way.

He could ask for permission to search your car. If you say yes, then anything illegal that is found is admissible in court against you.

He could call for a currency-sniffing dog if one is reasonably available to him (he can't detain you forever waiting). If the dog shows up and alerts on your money, the courts have said that this is PC for the seizure and further testing of the money. If it is found to have detectable amounts of illegal drugs on it, it can then be legally seized by the government as proceeds of illegal drug sales - the money itself is presumed to be contraband.

And according to 5-0 Kenpo, he could search your car for your registration and wherever your registration might be - I'm still not so sure of that, but I've been out of law enforcement for a long time, he could be right. But again, the cash itself is not illegal - without something else, it's just money, it appears to be yours, and there's not much he can do about it just because you have it.

As far as confiscation goes - meaning the permanent loss of the money - I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement agency can indiscriminately take money (and jewelry and other objects of value) from motorists on the mere suspicion that they are drug dealers. State laws differ, but without probable cause to believe it - not reasonable suspicion - I just don't believe it.

As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much. Failure to signal. Thats enough right there for an initial stop. Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use. I was on a ride along with a cop. We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was. It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic. Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car. The reason? Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.

Yes, that's PC for a stop. And yes, any traffic violation will do.

Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways. Is it always a sure shot? Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.

Law enforcement officers often develop good instincts over years of experience. They know body language, they know liars, they know bad people almost on sight. I doubt anyone but a defense attorney would dispute that.

And often it is a game - the cop knows the guy is dirty, he knows the cop knows, and now it is a dance to see who screws up first.

All that is important. It doesn't change the laws, though. Knowing a guy is dirty doesn't give the police the authority to break the rules to catch him. The main reason is that if they can it to catch the bad guy, they can do it to any one of us.

And the oft-heard refrain "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear," doesn't really get it. Your cash could be legally and clearly yours, and you're just a guy who likes to take his money out for a drive in the country now and then - and the police just take it for no reason other than a police officer, with his years of experience, thinks you're dirty. And while I know 99.99% of cops are decent and honorable human beings who would never do that, there are still those who would.

Therefore, IMHO, the laws regarding civil asset forfeiture and search and seizure have to apply to everyone - even dirty drug dealers - or they apply to no one.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

He could call for a currency-sniffing dog if one is reasonably available to him (he can't detain you forever waiting). If the dog shows up and alerts on your money, the courts have said that this is PC for the seizure and further testing of the money. If it is found to have detectable amounts of illegal drugs on it, it can then be legally seized by the government as proceeds of illegal drug sales - the money itself is presumed to be contraband.

Could be any money though.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Could be any money though.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

Yeah, that is a problem. However, I've also read dissenting opinions that currency-sniffing dogs can't detect levels that low.

http://www.k9fleck.org/nlu09.htm

It's interesting stuff. In some cases, it appears that if the dog alerts on your money, it's bye-bye money. Even if the money was legit and you innocently happened to have money that had once been 'in the presence' of narcotics. Supposing the money had been to the bank and then back out again, it could happen. I'd sure be mad if it happened to me, I'll tell you that much.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

By the way, you didn't mention if you could pry open locked storage areas in your search for a registration - can you? If so, and you find no contraband, are you or your department liable for damages? I realize that in the execution of a lawful search warrant, even if nothing is found, the police / municipality are not liable for damage done, but I'm curious about your traffic-stop searches.

The case law that I have seen does not mention anything about this, so I can't say. I would imagine however, that it depends on the circumstances. As you know, the more reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, the easier it is to justify actions.

There may be more recent case law than this, but this is what I found and it jibes with what we were taught back in the day.

I'm not disputing your statements, but wondering if you happen to know of case law that would overturn Knowles?

I don't think its a matter of overturning Knowles. Here is the case law (Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60), cited with contemperary cases in which it was applied:

Source: California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook

Minor stopped for speeding was unlicensed and failed to provide evidence of his identity, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration. Prior to issuing a citation, the officer felt under the driver's seat for documentation relating to the driver or the truck. From a position behind the driver's seat, the officer then looked under the seat and found a glass pipe and a box containing a vial with a white powder residue. HELD: The seizure of the pipe and vial was valid. The area under the front seat, unlike an area such as the trunk, is a location where the documents reasonably may be expected to be found.

Driver stopped for unsafe lane changes denied having his license or any documentation concerning the car. The officer searched in the glove compartment, under the driver's seat, and under the front passenger's seat, where he found a wallet containing the driver's identification and a baggie of methamphetamine. HELD: The search for documents and the seizure and search of the wallet were valid.

I will make the caveat that this may only apply in California, because the Arturo decision was a State Supreme Court issue. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that other state's decisions would be similar.

Also, there are many other ways to look at this issue, other then the one that I provided.

If the officer wishes to issue a citation, or merely has the ability to do so, this is technically an arrest. (Note, this is different in Knowles speaking about the citation process alone.) That would mean that, incident to this arrest, the officer can search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. He can even then search the trunk under the guise of an inventory search if he has the ability to tow the vehicle.

Those are the ways to get into a car to search it. Not too difficult for even a green cop.

But regardless, for my own opinion, I hate the way that asset forfeiture laws are used. I, in my own silly way I guess, believe I saw something in the U.S. Constitution about being secure in your property except by due process. I didn't think that included any cop on the side of the road deciding that it was drug money and therefore could be seized. Or even any investigator. I always thought that meant judge and jury. Silly me.

 

[jks9199]

A couple of things:

I can't say what the officers told people that they pulled over. That is up for a court to decide. But....

1. It is not uncommon for police officers to use ruses to get further evidence or admissions to crimes. Nor is there anything illegal about it. It may be rude, and therefore against a department policy, depending on what is said, but not illegal. The exception is a possible Miranda violation.

2. I can assure you that if I were to pull you over, it is more then likely that I can search your car, at least the passenger compartment, without your consent, and it be perfectly legal. I don't know how many cops here are gonna hate me for telling "secrets", but as I believe that most of the people here are law abiding citizens, I'll say it anyway.

Case law Pennsylvania vs. Mimms states that a law enforcement officer can order any vehicle occupant that is detained out of a vehicle for any, or no, reason what so ever. Once done, all I then have to do is ask you for your vehicle registration and insurance. As most people do not keep those documents on their person, I am then legally allowed to search the those areas of the vehicle where those documents can reasonably be. That include center console, underneath seats, glove compartments, etc.

So, all this stuff about needing PC to arrest or even reasonable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or contraband goes out the window under these circumstances.

3. Now, under drug asset forfeiture laws, it is ridiculously easy for officers to seize money. In my opinion, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, it is incumbent upon the citizen to prove that he should have the money. You know, no such thing as innocent until proven guilty in this context. Utterly ridiculous. But not illegal under current written laws and case laws.

That's a stretch... Mimms and Wilson give us the authority to control the movements of all of the occupants of the car, either keeping them in the car or having them exit. They don't really address searches... The Carroll Doctrine gets you a search of the car, if you have PC that the evidence you're searching for is in the car, but I think you're stretching to search for evidence of insurance/licensing. Most states still have a law on the books that says we can stop a car "to inspect its equipment, operation, manufacturer's serial or engine number... or to obtain necessary information." But I don't think anyone is teaching rooks that they can stop a car without at least reasonable suspicion, right? And your search would have to stop as soon as you found the registration -- and it'd take some quick explaining as to why you started in the back seat.

But -- that doesn't mean that there's not a lot of ways to get into the car...

 

[jks9199]

Could be. It's been a long time for me, but back in the day, it was the 'lunge area' that could be checked, and only for weapons. No prying open locked areas like the center console or the glove box if they were locked, and no searching the trunk, etc, without permission or a warrant.

As to "PC," the officer still has to have PC to make the stop. You can't pull someone over and THEN develop PC for having stopped them. If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc. If they're frisky you can certainly hook them up for your own safety. And as I mentioned, back in the day, you could search the lunge area of the car for weapons. That's about it. Doesn't give you PC to search the whole car or pry locked things open - unless the laws have changed since my day, and they might have.

Nope; you don't need PC to stop a car. You need reasonable suspicion; the standard is not nearly the same. I can stop a car because I can articulate facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to conclude that a crime may be afoot (like stopping a car for weaving because I suspect the driver is DUI).

Searches of cars gets more complicated -- especially in light of the US SC ruling in Arizona v Gant published last month. More in a moment...

Not the current case law. If I need to go into a car for registration, I can check anywhere it may likely be.



True. But nearly every vehicle can be stopped for some violation. It isn't that difficult for an officer who knows their state's vehicle code laws to do.

If you have PC for the stop, you have the right to detain the driver (technically an arrest) for as long as it takes to write them up and check their license, wants and warrants, etc.

If you haven't, read Gant. While the Court went to some lengths to make it clear that several exceptions to the search warrant requirement still remain -- it took away the idea of using Chimel to get a "wingspan" search incident to arrest. A recent VA ruling (sorry, don't have the cite handy) also made it clear that, in VA, we can't make a custodial arrest for a releasable offense without justification solely to get into the car. I suspect that the courts will frown on creating a circumstance, like ordering the driver & occupants out of the car, to justify a search for the registration card. Especially if the areas or sequence of the search wasn't pretty directly towards likely areas...

I think it is more than likely that you have overzealous cops trying to catch bad guys. I have seen cops who take stuff. They don't then turn around and give it to the department.

Personally -- in this Texas situation, I think there's definitely some room for questions to be raised about the seizures. I think that maybe there have been some shaky things done, maybe with nefarious intent, or maybe not. There's just not enough to tell, and it's all one sided.

 

[jks9199]

Source: California Peace Officer's Legal Sourcebook

Minor stopped for speeding was unlicensed and failed to provide evidence of his identity, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration. Prior to issuing a citation, the officer felt under the driver's seat for documentation relating to the driver or the truck. From a position behind the driver's seat, the officer then looked under the seat and found a glass pipe and a box containing a vial with a white powder residue. HELD: The seizure of the pipe and vial was valid. The area under the front seat, unlike an area such as the trunk, is a location where the documents reasonably may be expected to be found.

Driver stopped for unsafe lane changes denied having his license or any documentation concerning the car. The officer searched in the glove compartment, under the driver's seat, and under the front passenger's seat, where he found a wallet containing the driver's identification and a baggie of methamphetamine. HELD: The search for documents and the seizure and search of the wallet were valid.

I will make the caveat that this may only apply in California, because the Arturo decision was a State Supreme Court issue. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that other state's decisions would be similar.

Also, there are many other ways to look at this issue, other then the one that I provided.

If the officer wishes to issue a citation, or merely has the ability to do so, this is technically an arrest. (Note, this is different in Knowles speaking about the citation process alone.) That would mean that, incident to this arrest, the officer can search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. He can even then search the trunk under the guise of an inventory search if he has the ability to tow the vehicle.

The situations described are a bit more than simply stopping a car, ordering the driver out, and searching for the registration. Even then, I suspect that your courts would have problems with a search for the registration that starts in the back seat. Even though I've had t-stops with cars where the registration was in the back seat... We still run into that reasonableness requirement from the Fourth Amendment, and I think that a search for the registration that starts far away from the driver is going to be problematic.

Also -- there's plenty of case law distinguishing even a criminal offense where the "arrestee" is released on a summons at the scene by the officer (or similar process) from custodial arrest. And, I know that the Virginia Supreme Court has come down as clearly being opposed to an officer making a custodial arrest on a releasable offense without justification.

Those are the ways to get into a car to search it. Not too difficult for even a green cop.

Absolutely -- and I'm all for knowing and using them!

But regardless, for my own opinion, I hate the way that asset forfeiture laws are used. I, in my own silly way I guess, believe I saw something in the U.S. Constitution about being secure in your property except by due process. I didn't think that included any cop on the side of the road deciding that it was drug money and therefore could be seized. Or even any investigator. I always thought that meant judge and jury. Silly me.

Asset forfeiture is slippery, dangerous territory, and there have been numerous accounts of investigations conducted with asset forfeiture as a primary goal...

What bothers me about this one is that it seems to give the Texas cops a lot of latitude in "detaining" property for investigation... I haven't looked up the code, and I don't know what administrative provisions are required (asset forfeiture in VA is complicated enough that several agencies I know dedicate a couple of officers apiece to it...), but without controls, that seems kind of scary to me.

 

[Archangel M]

Its interesting....some are saying that you need PC to confiscate things, others are saying no. Clarification please. So, if a cop sees a bag full of cash, can he take it? Can he ask what its for? Bill stated that he could simply say its none of your business.

As for PC for the initial stop....doesnt take much. Failure to signal. Thats enough right there for an initial stop. Where it goes from there...well as 5.0 mentioned, there are tricks of the trade to use. I was on a ride along with a cop. We were parked on the side of a bank, where the ATM was. It was early AM, and he was just watching traffic. Next thing I know, he pulls out and starts chasing a car. The reason? Mirrored window tints, which are illegal.

Like I said in an earlier post...99% of the population doesnt know the 'tricks' so a veteran officer will most likely find ways. Is it always a sure shot? Dont know, but its amazing how many badguys get caught, how many drug offenses are found, by cops that seem to have a nose for these things.

NO.

If I needed PC I would be arresting YOU and not just confiscating the cash. The officer needs to have articulable reasonable suspicion to "confiscate". There mere possession of a few grand in your pocket or bag is not typically enough (unless its shrink wrapped and hidden in the firewall). The officer needs to be able to articulate why the possession is suspicious (lack of means, denial of ownership, etc..) The forfeiture hearing is where the determination of "PC" (of a sorts) to KEEP the property is determined.

As JKS has already stated, you dont need "PC" to stop a car either...just RS.

United States v Zacher (465 F. 3d 336 (2006) Eighth Circuit:
A law enforcement officer must have reasonable suspicion before he or she may seize a package for investigatory purposes.