Thanks for the recommendation, added to my amazon wishlist - been interested in this subject for some time, hoping this book sheds some light and gives some good debate points I can use and back up with some intelligence.bblhd672 wrote: Once again, everyone needs to read this book to understand the origins and the unbridled dishonesty of elected officials to betray the rights of American citizens: "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/re ... TF8&btkr=1
Seizing what appears to be evidence of a crime or in connection of a crime is one thing. Given your example, one can assume the cash with the coke is tied to the crime.(Of course, we know what we do when we assume don't we?) My point was that currently the assumption is all they need to do asset forfeiture in most cases. You then have to prove your property innocent of whatever charges they come up with, instead of the DA proving it was gained/is connected to the crime.strogg wrote:With some context, though, I can see where they're coming from. Let's say some DEA officers raid a home with a warrant, then find a stash of coke and $50K in cash with that stash. Whether they get the perps is irrelevant at this point. I would presume the money with the coke is illegal cash that can be seized.
Now in another context (argument against), some cops pull over a stolen vehicle. Inside, they find that the driver is a suspected drug dealer that the DEA is looking for, so they arrest him. Then they find $5K in cash on his body as well, so they seize it and hand it over to the feds.
Take your second example, there have been cases of people carrying large sums of cash that were seized because they appeared to be for the purpose of doing something illegal, such as buying drugs.
Between the choice to up asset forfeitures, and his doubling down on failed drug policies - I'm starting to really doubt the 'greatness' of choosing Sessions for AG.