TexasCHLforum.com

tfrazier wrote:I'm just saying that most of the folks who were supposedly "victimized" were probably not your average law abiding citizens.

The destruction of liberty and unfair punishment of the innocent is reprehensible even when done under misguided attempts at benevolence or intent to better society.

I don't doubt some of them were drug dealers or mules who were stupid enough to (1) drive through an area known for attentive law-enforcement and (2) consent to searches of their vehicles. The 150 plaintiffs mentioned in the article were not prosecuted for a crime. We have no idea how many were prosecuted and found guilty.

I decided a long time ago that the injustices perpetrated in the name of the "war on drugs" far exceed whatever good might have been done (which I think is none).

- Jim

Excellent point. I've run out of speculation on this for the moment... until more fodder comes across the wire about it. I've also had my doubts about the war on drugs over the years...and they continue to grow, as do my doubts about the Patriot Act.

Gonna see what the ol' BlackBerry has in Google alerts in the morning.

wow, I've carried more than 15 grand on me more than once going up and down 59.

One time was because this guy would only accept cash for a truck we wanted because he distrusted banks lol

TexasComputerDude wrote:wow, I've carried more than 15 grand on me more than once going up and down 59.

One time was because this guy would only accept cash for a truck we wanted because he distrusted banks lol

If you ever do it again, be sure you go around Tenaha.

tfrazier wrote:ts.

On the other hand, perhaps there is way too much power in the hands of government and law enforcement, and the people have given too much of their own responsibility for their own defence and safety up to those entities...

(we need a little emoticon of a guy stirring a pot...)

I agree completely.....
And here's your emoticon...use as much as you'd like....

JL

Didn't it say they were stopped for speeding as little as 2mph over the limit and then "arrested" at which point the search was conducted, money was found etc? The story seems to indicate that these people were arrested for speeding, and the vehicles were searched secondary to the arrest, which is legal and requires no consent.....as long as the arrest is a lawful arrest. However, speeding is one of one two traffic offenses that you cannot be arrested and taken before the magistrate for in Texas. The other is having an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, (not DWI mind you, just having an open container). You can, theoretically, be arrested and taken to jail for making a turn without using your blinker, but speeding and open container you cannot. With all that said, I have to wonder, if these people were truly arrested, was the cop arresting them for speeding? Some other crime not mentioned here? Was he mearling "detaining" them in handcuffs for his own safety (in which case consent would be required for a search)? So much of this story untold. Also, why would the drop the charges if the person forfeits the cash? If you prove that the cash is procedes of a drug deal, the agency gets to keep it anyway, so why not take the money AND prosecute? This all seems a little hinky to me. I never believe anything on the news until I see it first hand.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to spot an arrest-able offense following the average driver for less than a mile. Just crossing over a pavement paint stripe or stopping past the line at an intersection is "disregarding a traffic control device" and an arrest-able offense. Not turning your turn signal on a minimum of 100' prior to the turn...

The fact that the CNN story says they were arrested for speeding just points to the sloppy and likely biased reporting and lack of facts. If they truly had been arrested for speeding, the plaintiffs' class action civil suit would already have been settled for a tidy sum.

Police said he was driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. They hauled him off to jail and threatened him with money-laundering charges -- but offered to release him if he signed papers forfeiting his property.

If they used some other charge under which it is legal to arrest as stated in my first paragraph, well...after that, it's a matter of discovering contraband not as a result of a warrant less search, but as a result of a policy mandated "inventory" of the vehicle's contents ostensibly for the protection of the arrestee's property during the impound process.

All perfectly legal, and all perfectly susceptible to abuse. I don't think it happens often, but it does happen.

And there's no excuse for departments to allow it any more, considering how cheap mobile video systems are these days. If Greenville had them in 1993, even a department with a town pop of 1,000 should have them in 2009.

But I'm still waiting to see more facts about this case. It's still all hearsay and opinion in the news stories on it so far.

tfrazier wrote:You'd be surprised at how easy it is to spot an arrest-able offense following the average driver for less than a mile.

I am not surprised. If I were a cop, I could write traffic tickets all day. I don't go a mile down the road without seeing failure to stop at the stop line, come to a full stop, or signal a maneuver. I also see little kids standing up on seats or in the beds of pickup trucks.

Yesterday, I saw someone literally go straight on red, right in front of me.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:...Yesterday, I saw someone literally go straight on red, right in front of me.

- Jim

I thought that was you following me.