[117899] in Cypherpunks
IP: Is possession of cash a crime?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Tue Sep 14 14:34:39 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v042101bab4043fc6ef91@[204.167.108.57]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:09:16 -0400
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
From: believer@telepath.com
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:16:54 -0500
To: ignition-point@precision-d.com
Subject: IP: Is possession of cash a crime?
Sender: owner-ignition-point@precision-d.com
Reply-To: believer@telepath.com
Source: WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990914_xnjdo_is_possess.shtml
Is possession of cash a crime?
Kansas cops confiscate money hidden in car
By Jon E. Dougherty
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
The seizure of nearly $19,000 in cash from a hidden
compartment in an automobile by Lyon County, Kansas
sheriff's deputies has critics questioning the validity of
the search and the decision of the sheriff's department to
keep the money, despite making no arrests.
In addition to criticizing the manner of the seizure, critics
are also questioning both the validity and motives behind
laws and Supreme Court decisions that, apparently,
grant states the right to make such seizures.
According to a published report, deputies made a
"routine traffic stop" of a car traveling on I-35 near
Emporia, Kan., in the early morning hours on Aug. 21.
Deputies -- likely suspecting the two men traveling in the
vehicle had drug connections -- radioed for nearby
Coffee County Sheriff's Department deputies to assist
them with a canine unit while searching the vehicle.
During the search, dogs sniffed out a hidden
compartment in the rear of the vehicle containing
$18,400 in cash. Officers then confiscated the cash but
made no arrests and, according to the report, found no
drugs or other contraband in the vehicle or on either
suspect.
Despite never being arrested for any crime, both men --
who were not named in the report -- must now file a
civil court action to recover the money. Otherwise,
county officials will be able to keep the money, which
would eventually be divided between the sheriff's
department and the county prosecuting attorney's office.
Such forfeiture laws, professedly born of the federal
government's quest to battle drug trafficking, have given
law enforcement officials and government bureaucracies
a license to steal, critics say, because as the Kansas
case demonstrates, there need not be any charges filed
against a suspect in order to seize the suspect's assets.
Large sums of cash found on a person is only one of a
number of profile items, but each constitutes a violation
of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal
search and seizure, they say.
Rick Buck, assistant attorney for Lyon County, told
WorldNetDaily that the drivers of the vehicle, which he
did not identify, have still had no charges filed against
them "at this time." He added he "had not heard"
whether the drivers had filed any civil action to reclaim
their money, and "could not say" why officers stopped
the vehicle, except that "it's likely they were in violation
of some state statute." And though the incident occurred
two weeks ago, Buck said he "had not yet reviewed the
officers' report."
Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute said that
officers were likely "just enforcing Kansas traffic laws,"
but agreed that a loose interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment has, over the years, given police more legal
flexibility. "Of course, traffic stops are frequently
pretexts to start a wider investigation," he added.
"As you know," Kopel told WorldNetDaily, "the Fourth
Amendment requires a court-issued warrant based on
probable cause before any searches are carried out."
However, he said, in the 1920s "the Supreme Court
began to create 'automobile exceptions' to the Fourth
Amendment."
The high court reasoned -- albeit incorrectly, Kopel said
-- that since vehicles were "mobile, perhaps they
wouldn't be around by the time a warrant was issued."
But, he said, "they didn't apply the same principle to
horses and carriages and the ability for police to search
saddlebags before getting a warrant."
Nevertheless, he said, "the search in Kansas is probably
legal based on Supreme Court precedents."
Kopel also said in recent years the Court has "generally
upheld civil forfeiture laws," though the Justices have
been showing some "gumption of late about enforcing a
little due process in the whole thing."
Jon E. Dougherty is a contributing editor to
WorldNetDaily.
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
**********************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
majordomo@precision-d.com
with the message:
(un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
**********************************************
<www.telepath.com/believer>
**********************************************
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
