CA - ATF agent to elderly man, "go back in that house or I'll blow you [sic] head off."

[Anti Federalist]

Lawsuit from a raid that found nothing, still not clear what, exactly the goon squad was looking for, but they found plenty of cash to steal.



Elderly Couple Can Sue SFPD, Federal Agents Over Missing $200,000

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/03/malaquias_and_cayetana_reynoso.php

A judge this week ruled that an elderly couple could sue the San Francisco Police Department and other federal agents over what the couple claims was an illegal raid on their San Francisco home.

According to court documents, Malaquias and Cayetana Reynoso were inside their home on June 18, 2009, when officers with the SFPD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives forced their way into the house and held them at gunpoint for five hours while they searched the property.

The couple -- both were in their 70s at the time -- claim the officers refused to let them go to the bathroom unattended or take their medication. When the officers left, Malaquias Reynoso said he noticed $200,000 in cash had "disappeared" from his bedroom during the search.

When he confronted the officer, the cop allegedly pointed a gun Malaquias Reynoso's head and said "go back in that house or I'll blow you [sic] head off."

Agent Megan Long, the ATF, and the U.S. government asked the court to dismiss the couple's complaint, but U.S. District Judge Susan Illston refused, noting that, as the Reynoso's claimed, officers took the money without reporting it as part of the search. She also disagreed with the defendants who claimed the Reynosos failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to court documents.

"Defendants knew that plaintiffs, who were in their seventies, had no criminal record," the judge wrote. According to the complaint, the search resulted in Malaquias suffering a 'complete physical and mental collapse, necessitating his being carried off to a hospital.'"

Illston, however, dismissed claims of "unreasonable force" and unlawful seizure of property under the Federal Tort Claims Act, finding that the federal defendants had immunity.

Matt Dorsey, spokesman with the S.F. City Attorney's Office, told SF Weekly they aren't too worried about these allegations.

"No findings have been reached about any of the factual allegations, and the city is confident it will prevail at trial with respect to claims against the San Francisco Police Department," Dorsey said.

(Of course, he's not worried, even if they lose, it's not his money. - AF)

[NidStyles]

Sometimes I do feel compelled to violate my oath to never pick up a rifle in anger again.

[fisharmor]

Sometimes I do feel compelled to violate my oath to never pick up a rifle in anger again.

Gotcha: you're the reloader.

[AFPVet]

...finding that the federal defendants had immunity. Isn't that flecking sick?

[otherone]

so um...where...um...is the um...money?

[Schifference]

What money?

[Anti Federalist]

so um...where...um...is the um...money?

#677

Reported

[bolil]

What right did that old man have to save that much money! Our economy needs it now. I am glad they robbed him at gunpoint, selfish bastard... saving money is for fascists. WHO WANTS TO BET THEY HAD A TIP AND THE MONEY WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR GOING IN?

[otherone]

#677

Reported

That wasn't um...me asking....um....some guy (possibly a one-armed man) asked me to um....ask....

[dillo]

who keeps 200,000 in cash in their bedroom?

what was the warrant for?

[Pericles]

who keeps 200,000 in cash in their bedroom?

what was the warrant for?

People who have talked to those who lived through Roosevelt's "bank holiday", where it didn't matter how much money you had in the bank. It was not available for withdrawal.

[Anti Federalist]

who keeps 200,000 in cash in their bedroom?

what was the warrant for?

Can't find what they were raiding for.

Who's business is it about how much or where they kept their money?

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting that this happened in 2009 and they still haven't gotten the issue resolved. Great "justice" system there. /sarcasm

[Anti Federalist]

Interesting that this happened in 2009 and they still haven't gotten the issue resolved. Great "justice" system there. /sarcasm

No kidding.

Old incident, new lawsuit.

Many is the time that is the first I hear of the incident, when the lawsuit gets filed.

[PaulConventionWV]

who keeps 200,000 in cash in their bedroom?

what was the warrant for?

People who don't trust banks.

[PaulConventionWV]

This should be an open and shut case for the elderly couple. Sadly, that's not how our judicial system works.

[phill4paul]

If a man's home is his castle and castles had murder holes to defend against attackers then......

[dillo]

Can't find what they were raiding for.

Who's business is it about how much or where they kept their money?

Isn't it illegal to hold more than 10,000 cash undeclared?

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't it illegal to hold more than 10,000 cash undeclared?

No, not at all.

You have to "declare" it if you were leaving or entering the country, and any cash transaction over ten grand at a fed regulated bank (which is to say, all of them) will trigger a STR (suspicious transaction report) but there is absolutely no law prohibiting any amount of cash or PMs privately held.

That does not stop cops from routinely seizing cash from people under drug "forfeiture" laws.

Just one story of tens of thousands:




Middle Tennessee Police Profiting Off Drug Trade?

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14643085/police-profiting-off-drug-trade

By Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A major NewsChannel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee's war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?

At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.

It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee.

Case in point: a 2009 stop where a tractor trailer was stopped for a traffic violation, leading to a search and the discovery of large blocks containing almost $200,000 cash -- cash that officers keep on the suspicion that it's drug money.

"What's wrong with having a large amount of cash?" asked Karen Petrosyan, a California businessman who owned the truck.

Petrosyan refuses to admit there's anything suspicious about the stash that police discovered. Officers later released his father, who was driving the truck, without filing a single charge -- and authorities cut a deal that let Petrosyan come to Tennessee to get his big rig back.
Read officers' narrative about why money seized

"If I am a criminal, if they allege me to be a criminal," Petrosyan told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "why would they settle? They do not just let criminals go."

District Attorney General Kim Helper said that "in general, it was seized because -- based upon our evidence and probable cause -- it's illegal drug proceeds."

Still, Helper admitted that what makes the Petrosyan case a bit unusual is the location. The traffic stop occurred in Smith County, near the Carthage exit. But the officers work for Helper's 21st Judicial District Drug Task Force out of Franklin -- more than an hour away.

Her officers patrol that area under a deal where they give a third of any cash they seize to the agency that owns that stretch of road.
Read the agreement between the 21st and 15th judicial districts

"It's a way to make money ... for your task force?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Helper.

The DA paused.

"Honestly?" we asked, prompting a smile from Helper.

"Well, you know, when you say 'make money,' I guess it is a way for us to continue to fund our operations so that we can put an end to drug trafficking and the drug trade within this district," she responded.

In fact, Interstate 40 has become a major profit center for Tennessee law enforcement -- with officers stopping and often searching out-of-state vehicles. It's because of a state law that lets them seize money simply based on the suspicion that it's linked to drug trafficking.

If an owner does not take legal action to get the money back, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is really highway shakedowns coming to the U.S.," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney with the Washington-based Institute for Justice.

Last year, the conservative-leaning group issued a report -- "Policing for Profit" -- that gave Tennessee a D-minus for civil forfeiture laws that make that it all possible.
Read the "Policing for Profit" report here

"Under civil forfeiture," Bullock said, "you give law enforcement a direct and perverse incentive to go out and try to take as much property from citizens as possible."

Dickson Police Chief Ricky Chandler said, "What we are doing, we're taking advantage of how the laws are, to use the money to be able to put back to fight the drugs."

Chandler heads the board for the 23rd Judicial District Drug Task Force, which has made millions off seizures in its counties -- Humphreys, Dickson and Cheatham. The town of Fairview also provides officers to the Task Force in exchange for a cut of the cash.

Then, three years ago, Chandler and the Dickson County sheriff helped create a second team -- known as Dickson Interdiction Criminal Enforcement, or DICE -- to work the exact same stretches of interstate.

Humphreys County and the town of Kingston Springs provide officers -- and Cheatham County allows DICE to work in its jurisdiction -- in exchange for a share of the money.
Read the agreement for the creation of DICE

"Everything's paid through seizures and fines," Chandler said.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "So if these officers out on the interstate don't come up with cash, then they might lose their jobs?"

"Well, it's a possibility, yes," Chandler answered.

Out on I-40, interdiction officers have a choice: Conventional wisdom is that the drugs come in from Mexico on the eastbound side. But the money goes back on the west.

While both agencies have made some big drug cases, we spotted both the 23rd and DICE staging time and time again with their backs to the drug side.

In fact, a review of daily activity sheets kept by the 23rd discovered that, when officers noted the location of their traffic stops, there were 10 times as many stops on the money side.
Review activity sheets for 23rd DTF, Oct-Dec 2010
Review summary of 23rd DTF cases, 2009-2010

Both DICE and the 21st Judicial District say they do not keep such daily activity reports.

UPDATE: A review of case summaries supplied by DICE shows that the entire team made one drug seizure -- 602 grams of heroin -- from Interstate 40 in all of 2010. Those officers arrested six people during stops on I-40 during that same 12-month period -- four of them on fugitive warrants, not for drug possession. Most DICE cases were seizures of money in the westbound lanes.
Review summary of DICE cases, 2010

"We want both sides of the road worked," Chandler insisted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "It looks like that they are not concerned about stopping the drugs, they just want the money."

"That's what it looks like," the chief admitted.

Is that the case?

"That shouldn't be the case, but that's what it looks like."

Scott Bullock with the Institute for Justice said that "it shows that the police are really focusing, not on trying to get the drugs, not on trying to enforce the drug laws and stop that flow throughout the country. They're focused on getting the money."

And it can lead to turf wars.

After DICE got a $1 million seizure last fall, police video shows that a DICE officer suddenly found himself being blocked by a unit from the 23rd while watching the westbound lanes. Within minutes, five units from the 23rd were lined up in a show of force.

As a result, the two agencies had to work out a "letter of agreement," specifying who would have priority on the westbound lanes on which days.
Read the letter of agreement between the 23rd and DICE


Then, there's a 2008 video where a unit from the 23rd cuts in front of a DICE unit on a stop, prompting this heated exchange:

23rd DTF Officer: "Leave me the f***k alone!"
DICE Officer: "Let me tell you something..."
23rd DTF Officer: "Punk!"
DICE Officer: "You ever come up [on] me and try to wreck me out again, it will be your last time. You understand?"

Chandler called those disputes "ridiculous."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "You've got two agencies fighting to stop the same cars."

"Competition can be a good thing," the chief said, "as long as you don't violate any person's rights."

But they're competing for the money that they can take off of drivers.

"Well, they are competing to do their jobs is what they are competing for," he insisted.

It's a job that, Bullock said, has lost its way. "Law enforcement is supposed to be about getting the bad guys. It's not supposed to be about making money."

Law enforcement authorities say their goal is to hit the drug traffickers in the pocketbook.

But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.

[TheTexan]

Illston, however, dismissed claims of "unreasonable force" and unlawful seizure of property under the Federal Tort Claims Act, finding that the federal defendants had immunity.

Matt Dorsey, spokesman with the S.F. City Attorney's Office, told SF Weekly they aren't too worried about these allegations.

"No findings have been reached about any of the factual allegations, and the city is confident it will prevail at trial with respect to claims against the San Francisco Police Department," Dorsey said.

Secession please

[azxd]

The sad part is that you must get permission to sue the government or it's representatives if you feel you have been wronged ... That's what freedom has become.

Request permission to relieve self, Sir !

[dillo]

So if I have 1 million in cash sitting in my room and the cops come bust a party for a noise complaint and see it. Do I have to provide how I obtained it? For them to seize it do they just need a warrant? Or if you are cleared of drug charges do they hand you your cash back? This is all very confusing to me.

[Demigod]

I do not understand how you are not at the point where you start killing police officers indiscriminately.I mean it is one thing to detain people for no reason even using excessive force but going into peoples houses and stealing their money is just ridiculous .After the policeman put a gun to his head when confronted about the money the old man should have just got his gun and start shooting at them.

He should at least bomb the nearest police station.

[tod evans]

So if I have 1 million in cash sitting in my room and the cops come bust a party for a noise complaint and see it. Do I have to provide how I obtained it? For them to seize it do they just need a warrant? Or if you are cleared of drug charges do they hand you your cash back? This is all very confusing to me.


As the law stands all it takes for any law enforcement agency to take your cash is one person swearing out a statement.
Once they are in possession of your cash you must retain counsel and argue the validity of the accusations.

Bank accounts don't offer any more protection other than "Joe-cop" can't pocket your money for his own use.

"Real Property" forfeiture is a whole 'nuther area of law that'll scare the bejesus out of you!

[Anti Federalist]

So if I have 1 million in cash sitting in my room and the cops come bust a party for a noise complaint and see it. Do I have to provide how I obtained it? For them to seize it do they just need a warrant? Or if you are cleared of drug charges do they hand you your cash back? This is all very confusing to me.

No, no and no.

Forfeiture laws vary from state to state and feds, but in almost all cases, all that is required is for the cops to claim that they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe that your assets (and keep in mind it's not just cash, it's cars, homes, real estate, art, guns, PMs, you name it) were "materially funded by illegal activities (not just drugs either) and, boom, it's theirs.

No charges, no convictions, no court order of any kind is needed.

Now, you're broke, but on the hook to spend tens of thousands in legal fees to try and reclaim your property.

Pretty good scam, ain't it?


As the law stands all it takes for any law enforcement agency to take your cash is one person swearing out a statement.
Once they are in possession of your cash you must retain counsel and argue the validity of the accusations.

Bank accounts don't offer any more protection other than "Joe-cop" can't pocket your money for his own use.

"Real Property" forfeiture is a whole 'nuther area of law that'll scare the bejesus out of you!

What he said.

[Anti Federalist]

Huge study and a long read, but this will open your eyes.

Well worth it...


Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3114&Itemid=165

Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.


Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture chronicles how state and federal laws leave innocent property owners vulnerable to forfeiture abuse and encourage law enforcement to take property to boost their budgets. The report finds that by giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture efforts, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit, not justice.

Policing for Profit also grades the states on how well they protect property owners—only three states receive a B or better. And in most states, public accountability is limited as there is little oversight or reporting about how police and prosecutors use civil forfeiture or spend the proceeds.

Federal laws encourage even more civil forfeiture abuse through a loophole called “equitable sharing” that allows law enforcement to circumvent even the limited protections of state laws. With equitable sharing, law enforcement agencies can and do profit from forfeitures they wouldn’t be able to under state law.

It’s time to end civil forfeiture. People shouldn’t lose their property without being convicted of a crime, and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to profit from other people’s property.