IL-Breakfast in Collinsville

[Anti Federalist]

Two Star Trek nerds have a run in with the Police State.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM&feature=player_embedded

[phill4paul]

The officer is not 'overly concerned' about citizen rights.

[oyarde]

I would bill Collinsville for my time , if they failed to pay , I would see about filing a lein.

[Anti Federalist]

The officer is not 'overly concerned' about citizen rights.

No combat quals earned today.

He was disappoint.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Maybe his friend *was* nervous. I'm nervous about police contact because I'm a bit worried they'll kill me for no reason.

[phill4paul]

Maybe his friend *was* nervous. I'm nervous about police contact because I'm a bit worried they'll kill me for no reason.

I was given this same shtick awhile back when I had a pull that must have been lifted from the same manual. I told him that two officers dressed in para-military uniforms, each with their hands on their glocks and one standing at my '6' tend to make this particular citizen nervous.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I was in a car accident recently, and asked the policeman who made the report if I could take a picture of his name/badge with my phone. This was a situation where I was rear ended. (by an old lady, I mean). My memory isn't the greatest, so I take pictures of things I think I'll need to remember later. Also, I don't have a pen a lot of the time, so it is easier to take a picture. He jumped back 3 feet, put his hand on his gun, and started yelling that I had no reason to take any pictures of him.

I agreed at that point, just so I could leave the situation without getting shot or arrested. For fuck's sake, I was already injured. These people are scary.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe his friend *was* nervous. I'm nervous about police contact because I'm a bit worried they'll kill me for no reason.

That, comrade, is because you have not mastered double think and you do not love the state sufficiently.

You are reported.

[Anti Federalist]

I was given this same shtick awhile back when I had a pull that must have been lifted from the same manual. I told him that two officers dressed in para-military uniforms, each with their hands on their glocks and one standing at my '6' tend to make this particular citizen nervous.

Fun how that works, isn't it?

Cops routinely light up citizens for no good reason.

Citizens are understandably nervous when being confronted by cops.

Nervousness is a "warning flag" for "officers" to light up said citizen.

Rinse and repeat.

Combat Quals for all.

[Yieu]

Fun how that works, isn't it?

Cops routinely light up citizens for no good reason.

Citizens are understandably nervous when being confronted by cops.

Nervousness is a "warning flag" for "officers" to light up said citizen.

Rinse and repeat.

Combat Quals for all.

It's a frustrating cycle for the citizen, and it kind of makes it seem like we are under foreign military occupation when they harm us instead of protect us.

[flightlesskiwi]

It's a frustrating cycle for the citizen, and it kind of makes it seem like we are under foreign military occupation when they harm us instead of protect us.
..

read it. let it soak in.

we have 2 standing armies.

one deployed as foreign mercenaries. under the guise of "national security" and sometimes even "humanitarianism" their mission is to create chaos all across the globe so that TPTB can fill in the power vacuums war creates in order to shape/reshape geopolitical situations, enslaving the world one sovereign country at a time.

one is deployed here. under the guise of "protect and serve" they are the judge and jury-- sometimes executioner-- used to enforce the thousands of laws and regulations, thus enslaving the citizens one sovereign citizen at a time.

both, in reality, serve to protect an utterly corrupted system.

both organizations-- leadership especially-- are emboldened every day.

this is going to end badly.

[Yieu]

..

I was holding my tongue because I fear anything I say being used against me (although I doubt it would be in a court, by then); I am aware of the reality of the situation. ;)

But thanks for posting that for others to see.

[Travlyr]

Don't talk to cops. I wonder what would have happened if Terrence refused to get out of the car?

[oyarde]

That, comrade, is because you have not mastered double think and you do not love the state sufficiently.

You are reported. I just finished breakfast and self reported for not loving the state sufficiently :)

[Yieu]

Never consent.

Never talk to the cops.

Related to these two topics, I noticed something in the video.

The cop did not bring out the dog until the guy told him that he does not consent to a search.

Before the guy says "I do not consent," the cop appears to be powerlessly struggling to get either a consent or a non-consent in order to proceed.

It suspiciously looked as though if he had never talked, not even to refuse consent, the cop might have indeed been powerless.

I am not sure if this is a new discovery about the police rules, or if this one cop was just acting that way.

But it's worth looking into.

Consent = search
Refuse consent = dogs, false alarm, then search
Say nothing = ?...

[KCIndy]

Fun how that works, isn't it?

Cops routinely light up citizens for no good reason.

Citizens are understandably nervous when being confronted by cops.

Nervousness is a "warning flag" for "officers" to light up said citizen.

Rinse and repeat.

Combat Quals for all.


Add one more bit to that cycle:

After a shooting/beating/tazing or other needless tragedy, cops whine about how dangerous their job is and how badly they are misunderstood by an ungrateful and undeserving public.

That's the part that really grates on my last nerve... ugh.
:mad:

[phill4paul]

Add one more bit to that cycle:

After a shooting/beating/tazing or other needless tragedy, cops whine about how dangerous their job is and how badly they are misunderstood by an ungrateful and undeserving public.

That's the part that really grates on my last nerve... ugh.
:mad:

My Job.....
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTygACEFtaO46BCOqJxsjb1A7sQg6x6a Cfe0aQTmB9-g8EPCh9wDg
Dangerous

[Anti Federalist]

Add one more bit to that cycle:

After a shooting/beating/tazing or other needless tragedy, cops whine about how dangerous their job is and how badly they are misunderstood by an ungrateful and undeserving public.

That's the part that really grates on my last nerve... ugh.
:mad:

Gets on my nerves too.

All my adult life I've made my living, for thirty years now, in jobs, all of which are in the top ten of deadliest professions.

Commercial fishing, I've done some logging, banner pilot flying, merchant mariner.

Cops are not even in the top ten recently, and when they are, the majority of incidents are traffic related.

[RiseAgainst]

Related to these two topics, I noticed something in the video.

The cop did not bring out the dog until the guy told him that he does not consent to a search.

Before the guy says "I do not consent," the cop appears to be powerlessly struggling to get either a consent or a non-consent in order to proceed.

It suspiciously looked as though if he had never talked, not even to refuse consent, the cop might have indeed been powerless.

I am not sure if this is a new discovery about the police rules, or if this one cop was just acting that way.

But it's worth looking into.

Consent = search
Refuse consent = dogs, false alarm, then search
Say nothing = ?...


No, say nothing is still going to be the dog, and likely an obstruction charge as well. The only reason he kept going is that he was hoping he could talk him into the consent, if you consent you have NO DEFENSE for anything found. If you refuse consent everything beyond that point can be contested. Obviously he'd far rather have consent and know that you have no defense.

[coastie]

No, say nothing is still going to be the dog, and likely an obstruction charge as well. The only reason he kept going is that he was hoping he could talk him into the consent, if you consent you have NO DEFENSE for anything found. If you refuse consent everything beyond that point can be contested. Obviously he'd far rather have consent and know that you have no defense.

^This(minus the obstruction charge, that prolly varies state to state).

This is all very simple,actually:

Don't consent. Lock your doors/roll windows up when getting out if instructed to do so. They ask you why you locked your doors?= SILENCE. Act like the question was never even asked. Fuck them.

They ask you for your keys-I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.


Everything/anything the cop is saying to you is most likely a lie, as we've seen from this video. No matter what they are saying, STFU. Always remember: if a cop is talking to you-he is INVESTIGATING you. He's trying to get you to admit to a crime, PERIOD. He is NEVER on your "side".

Another thing in the video, the cop asks passenger where they came from. SILENCE. You ARE NOT required to tell the cops where you are going/where you're coming from. All it would've took was the passenger forgetting the name/misidentifying of the city you were just in, and his super cop radar goes off as you have something to hide, and it snowballs from there. Many states also don't require passengers to identify themselves during a stop(check your state).

We were always taught to separate everyone and ask them questions separately. This is what you saw in this video. The cop straight up lied and said his friend was nervous when asked about a search, which from the video was pretty clear the guy wasn't nervous at all.

It pains me to admit this-but I've done this stuff before when I was in LE(before my '07 awakening). Before anyone's panties set on fire-the times I did similar things this cop is doing, no arrests or charges/citations were made.

[Anti Federalist]

No, say nothing is still going to be the dog, and likely an obstruction charge as well. The only reason he kept going is that he was hoping he could talk him into the consent, if you consent you have NO DEFENSE for anything found. If you refuse consent everything beyond that point can be contested. Obviously he'd far rather have consent and know that you have no defense.

This!!!

Even if they found a sack of heroin and a dead body, without consent, then the validity of the stop, the search and any findings can be called into question.

Give consent, and anything they find, or plant, in your car, will be evidence to be used against you.

Once again, required viewing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[coastie]

No, say nothing is still going to be the dog, and likely an obstruction charge as well. The only reason he kept going is that he was hoping he could talk him into the consent, if you consent you have NO DEFENSE for anything found. If you refuse consent everything beyond that point can be contested. Obviously he'd far rather have consent and know that you have no defense.

^This(minus the obstruction charge, that prolly varies state to state).

This is all very simple,actually:

Don't consent. Lock your doors/roll windows up when getting out if instructed to do so. They ask you why you locked your doors?= SILENCE. Act like the question was never even asked. Fuck them.

They ask you for your keys-I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.


Everything/anything the cop is saying to you is most likely a lie, as we've seen from this video. No matter what they are saying, STFU. Always remember: if a cop is talking to you-he is INVESTIGATING you. He's trying to get you to admit to a crime, PERIOD. He is NEVER on your "side".

Another thing in the video, the cop asks passenger where they came from. SILENCE. You ARE NOT required to tell the cops where you are going/where you're coming from. All it would've took was the passenger forgetting the name/misidentifying of the city you were just in, and his super cop radar goes off as you have something to hide, and it snowballs from there. Many states also don't require passengers to identify themselves during a stop(check your state).

We were always taught to separate everyone and ask them questions separately. This is what you saw in this video. The cop straight up lied and said his friend was nervous when asked about a search, which from the video was pretty clear the guy wasn't nervous at all.

It pains me to admit this-but I've done this stuff before when I was in LE(before my '07 awakening). Before anyone's panties set on fire-the times I did similar things this cop is doing, no arrests or charges/citations were made.

[RiseAgainst]

@ coastie, +rep for post and for waking up. I'm a LE refugee myself, my family keeps asking why I won't go back to LE (they know I love protecting and serving) and I have to constantly remind them that great though they may be as individuals the job simply cannot be done in it's current state without trampling all over people.

[coastie]

@ coastie, +rep for post and for waking up. I'm a LE refugee myself, my family keeps asking why I won't go back to LE (they know I love protecting and serving) and I have to constantly remind them that great though they may be as individuals the job simply cannot be done in it's current state without trampling all over people.

Thanks. It's frustrating, I know, thats what everyone says to me as well at least once a month since I got out in 2010.

[DerailingDaTrain]

When I had 3 officers around me telling me where to stand, what to do, and when I could speak I got pretty nervous. My left leg was feeling wobbly. Dicks made me feel like I was talking with the Gestapo.

[coastie]

When I had 3 officers around me telling me where to stand, what to do, and when I could speak I got pretty nervous. My left leg was feeling wobbly. Dicks made me feel like I was talking with the Gestapo.

Level 1: Officer Presence ownz you.;)

[KCIndy]

@ coastie, +rep for post and for waking up. I'm a LE refugee myself, my family keeps asking why I won't go back to LE (they know I love protecting and serving) and I have to constantly remind them that great though they may be as individuals the job simply cannot be done in it's current state without trampling all over people.


Thanks. It's frustrating, I know, thats what everyone says to me as well at least once a month since I got out in 2010.


I can't think of a better way to summarize how twisted and upside down the law enforcement situation has become. You guys are exactly the type that *should* be in the LE ranks: persons who understand the concept of civil rights, can recognize crimes that actually have victims as opposed to "offenses" that merely generate revenue, and have a genuine desire to help others.

Instead, what we get is a classic example of the famous Lord Acton quote, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I've often said that when it comes to both police and politicians, if someone eagerly and urgently wants the job, he should never be allowed to have it.

[coastie]

I can't think of a better way to summarize how twisted and upside down the law enforcement situation has become. You guys are exactly the type that *should* be in the LE ranks: persons who understand the concept of civil rights, can recognize crimes that actually have victims as opposed to "offenses" that merely generate revenue, and have a genuine desire to help others.

Instead, what we get is a classic example of the famous Lord Acton quote, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I've often said that when it comes to both police and politicians, if someone eagerly and urgently wants the job, he should never be allowed to have it.

The problem is/was-we are VASTLY outnumbered in that field.

Believe me, I've been "spoken to" on one than more occasion for how I did things, but that was all it was. They knew they had nothing of substance against me, as I performed my job to a T w/ regards to upholding/defending the Constitution as well as their own fucking guidelines in how they pertained with applying that with real live US citizens-AND I made ALL subordinates under me do the same.

There is nowhere in this country that has a stated policy of "screw the citizens over"-they just do it. It's unspoken, because if anything like that was "official" policy, the public would not have any of it, and they could actually be liable in court. I'm positive every LE outfit in this country has some sort of rosey-sounding policy w/ regards to dealing with the public. As long as it is written down is all that is necessary, following it does not matter, as we see nowadays.

[fr33]

The incriminating shake was probably dogs shit and grass clippings brought in by the car-owner's shoes. Don't we all feel safe knowing we paid for a worthless dog and his commanding douche-bag who's job it is to harass peaceful people.

[AGRP]

If anyone appears nervous its the officer. His voice shakes when he talks as if hes lying about something.

[tod evans]

There is nowhere in this country that has a stated policy of "screw the citizens over"-they just do it. It's unspoken, because if anything like that was "official" policy, the public would not have any of it, and they could actually be liable in court. I'm positive every LE outfit in this country has some sort of rosey-sounding policy w/ regards to dealing with the public. As long as it is written down is all that is necessary, following it does not matter, as we see nowadays.

There is absolutely no reason for every cop to NOT be recorded every minute they are on duty, and not just with "dash-cams".

The technology is here now it's just up to the citizens to demand it.

If prosecutors and defense lawyers both knew a case would be thrown out without digital back-up some of this BS would come to a screeching halt.

[helmuth_hubener]

I have a dream that someday I am elected sheriff or police chief. This dream involves lots of pink slips. Pink slips for everyone. And no one gets a pension.

[Anti Federalist]

Balko at HuffPo:



Illinois Traffic Stop Of Star Trek Fans Raises Concerns About Drug Searches, Police Dogs, Bad Cops

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-search-trekies-stopped-searched-illinois_n_1364087.html#comments

Last December, filmmaker Terrance Huff and his friend Jon Seaton were returning to Ohio after attending a "Star Trek" convention in St. Louis. As they passed through a small town in Illinois, a police officer, Michael Reichert, pulled Huff's red PT Cruiser over to the side of the road, allegedly for an unsafe lane change. Over the next hour, Reichert interrogated the two men, employing a variety of police tactics civil rights attorneys say were aimed at tricking them into giving up their Fourth Amendment rights. Reichert conducted a sweep of Huff's car with a K-9 dog, then searched Huff's car by hand. Ultimately, he sent Huff and Seaton on their way with a warning.

Earlier this month, Huff posted to YouTube audio and video footage of the stop taken from Reichert's dashboard camera. No shots were fired in the incident. No one was beaten, arrested or even handcuffed. Reichert found no measurable amount of contraband in Huff's car. But Huff's 17-and-a-half minute video raises important questions about law enforcement and the criminal justice system, including the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the drug war, profiling and why it's so difficult to take problematic cops out of the police force.

The stop itself happened Dec. 4 on Interstate 70 in Collinsville, a town of 26,000 people just outside of St. Louis. Law enforcement officials say this stretch of highway is a drug-trafficking corridor. The account that follows is based on Huff’s video, the unedited dashboard footage from Reichert's vehicle and a Huffington Post interview with Huff.

After pulling Huff over, Reichert approaches Huff's car and asks him for his license, registration and proof of insurance. Huff complies. Reichert then asks Huff to step out of the car, because he says he can't hear him over the noise from the highway. Huff complies. Before talking to Huff, Reichert asks Seaton for ID as well, which Seaton isn't obligated to produce, but does.

Reichert then tells Huff he pulled him over for weaving across lanes. Huff says in his video that this is a fabrication. But he didn't challenge Reichert's claim at the time because, "I was from out of state, and I didn't want any trouble."

After running a check on Huff's license, Reichert tells Huff he'll let him off with a warning, and the two men shake hands. Legally, Huff is now free to go. But just as Huff is set to get back into his car, Reichert says, "Let me ask you a question real quick." Huff agrees.

[oyarde]

Collinsville , home of the worlds largest catsup bottle , think I will have to skip that road trip....

[phill4paul]

Update: Set Phasers to litigate: ‘Trekkie’ lawsuit against Illinois officer moves forward

In December 2011, Collinsville, Ill., police officer Michael Reichert pulled over Terrance Huff’s red PT Cruiser on Interstate 70, just outside of St. Louis. That portion of the interstate is commonly known to local defense lawyers as a “forfeiture corridor,” or a place where police agencies target motorists they suspect are smuggling (or perhaps just carrying) drugs in the hope of seizing cash, cars and other property for their departments.

After an alert from Reichert’s drug dog and an exhaustive search of Huff’s car, Reichert found no measurable quantity of drugs (he claimed to have found marijuana “shake”), and sent Huff on his way.

Unfortunately for Reichert, Huff is a documentary filmmaker. He’s also nobody’s pushover. After fighting some resistance from the Collinsville Police Department, Huff obtained dash-camera footage that raised some questions about the stop, the dog alert, Reichert’s questioning of Huff, and Reichert’s history of disciplinary problems as a police officer. It also raised some broader questions about how all of these tactics are used across the country. (I explored some of those questions here.) The incident later inspired a plot line in a 2012 episode of the CBS drama “The Good Wife.”

Huff then filed a lawsuit, which has since turned up all sorts of interesting information, including the fact that Reichert sometimes wiped marijuana on cars parked at local businesses as a form of training for his dog — without consent from the cars’ owners.

The biggest barrier to lawsuits against police officers is the doctrine of qualified immunity. It isn’t enough to show that a cop violated your rights. To even get in front of a jury, you must also show that the rights the officer violated were “well established” at the time of the incident. The tactics Reichert used in Huff’s case are fairly common, so Huff surviving qualified immunity was far from a sure thing. But this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected Reichert’s qualified immunity claim and will allow Huff’s suit to go forward.

The decision is a thorough rebuke of Reichert and an unmitigated victory for Huff — the court ruled in his favor on every claim. Huff will now need to persuade a jury to rule against Reichert.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/12/set-phasers-to-litigate-trekkie-lawsuit-against-illinois-officer-moves-forward/

[kcchiefs6465]

Fascists.

[WM_in_MO]

Collinsville is in our territory for sales, thanks for the heads up.

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't talk to cops. I wonder what would have happened if Terrence refused to get out of the car?

It depends. I've seen that go well and I've seen it go poorly. In any case, you aren't going anywhere for a while.

[PaulConventionWV]

Related to these two topics, I noticed something in the video.

The cop did not bring out the dog until the guy told him that he does not consent to a search.

Before the guy says "I do not consent," the cop appears to be powerlessly struggling to get either a consent or a non-consent in order to proceed.

It suspiciously looked as though if he had never talked, not even to refuse consent, the cop might have indeed been powerless.

I am not sure if this is a new discovery about the police rules, or if this one cop was just acting that way.

But it's worth looking into.

Consent = search
Refuse consent = dogs, false alarm, then search
Say nothing = ?...

That's a very good observation. Sometimes it is best to know when to plead the fifth. If I'm ever in this situation, I think I'll try that, either not talking or trying to drag it on without giving him an affirmative answer.

[PaulConventionWV]

^This(minus the obstruction charge, that prolly varies state to state).

This is all very simple,actually:

Don't consent. Lock your doors/roll windows up when getting out if instructed to do so. They ask you why you locked your doors?= SILENCE. Act like the question was never even asked. Fuck them.

They ask you for your keys-I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH.


Everything/anything the cop is saying to you is most likely a lie, as we've seen from this video. No matter what they are saying, STFU. Always remember: if a cop is talking to you-he is INVESTIGATING you. He's trying to get you to admit to a crime, PERIOD. He is NEVER on your "side".

Another thing in the video, the cop asks passenger where they came from. SILENCE. You ARE NOT required to tell the cops where you are going/where you're coming from. All it would've took was the passenger forgetting the name/misidentifying of the city you were just in, and his super cop radar goes off as you have something to hide, and it snowballs from there. Many states also don't require passengers to identify themselves during a stop(check your state).

We were always taught to separate everyone and ask them questions separately. This is what you saw in this video. The cop straight up lied and said his friend was nervous when asked about a search, which from the video was pretty clear the guy wasn't nervous at all.

It pains me to admit this-but I've done this stuff before when I was in LE(before my '07 awakening). Before anyone's panties set on fire-the times I did similar things this cop is doing, no arrests or charges/citations were made.

On second thought, this is probably accurate. Saying nothing likely won't get you any favors. However, I would like to note that, if the cop asks you why you lock your doors, don't say absolutely nothing... just dismiss it casually. Say it's a habit and THEN STFU. If they probe, politely tell them you are not required to answer that question and would like to exercise that right. If possible, try to change the subject.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If this guy can ever get the cop to court he could make him look a fool. A person's physical state cannot be cause for search, especially in light of the fact that said Officer is no specialist with bodily language, and furthermore, that bodily language is vague and is no indicator of 'admission'. I hope this guy sues the shit out of Officer Reichert. What a douchebag. Then people wonder why I loathe the police-apparatus.

PS: The only things I say to police are: I politely refuse to answer any questions, I do not consent to search or seizure, and am I free to go? That's it. Cops are there to generate revenue, enforce political edicts and oppression, and in the odd 2% chance actually do some investigation into actual crimes to fool the public into thinking they're there 'for them', and in all these cases, talking will only get you more fucked. They're not your friends. They're not there to help you. Treat them as you would any other would be thug, robber, or murderer. Treat as if being kidnapped/locked away and or killed is at stake, because it always is with police.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The only thing missing from that incident is a really good beating.

[phill4paul]

Radley Balko Update:

Illegal roadside search of Star Trek fan brings $100K settlement
BY RADLEY BALKO
April 28 at 12:22 pm

Last month, I noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to throw out a lawsuit against Michael Reichert, a Collinsville, Ill., police officer for the roadside search he performed on the car belonging to Terrance Huff, who, unfortunately for Reichert, is also a documentary filmmaker. The search, which was captured on Reichert’s dashboard camera, raised a number of questions about the use of drug dogs, the Fourth Amendment rights of motorists, the use of civil asset forfeiture and accountability for cops with a history of bad behavior. (See my March 2012 report for the Huffington Post for a summary of these issues.)

Collinsville lies along what local defense attorneys call a “forfeiture corridor,” or a sector along an interstate, interstates 55 and 70 in this case, where police regularly look for motorists who fit some profile of a drug courier. Police can then seize cars, cash and other belongings on the flimsiest of evidence, after which the owner must go to court to win it back. Huff and his friend were returning from a Star Trek convention in St. Louis when Reichert pulled them over.

Huff’s lawsuit revealed a number of abuses, including an incredible admission from Reichert that he would sometimes wipe marijuana on cars parked in motel parking lots in order to test his drug dog. He’d do this without the owners’ permission. This is significant, because a drug dog’s “alert” is sufficient probable cause for a search. Drug dogs often have poor performance records. Some studies and surveys (including one I did of a K9 unit with the Illinois State Police) have shown that in some jurisdictions, police find measurable quantities of drugs in fewer than half the searches conducted because of an alert. Police will justify those figures by explaining that drug dogs often alert to “residue” or olfactory remnants of where drugs once were. By that logic, Reichert was essentially wiping probable cause on those motorists’ cars or wiping away their Fourth Amendment rights — take your pick.

As awards go, Huff’s $100,000 settlement isn’t huge, but it also isn’t insignificant. The Seventh Circuit absolutely grilled Collinsville attorneys during oral arguments. If you do some math based on the figures in this 2010 article from the Edwardsville Intelligencer, Madison County as a whole (where the stop took place) brings in about a half million dollars per year from civil asset forfeiture. The Collinsville Police Department gets some cut of that. So $100,000 represents about a fifth of the county’s total take (at least as of 2010), and a significantly higher portion of the police department’s take. A couple more awards like that, and maybe the Collinsville Police Department will start to make some changes.

Here’s Huff’s statement on the settlement, which I’ve slightly cut for length:

Our decision to settle was reached during mandatory settlement conference after our victory in the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For the most part, we weighed the likely outcome of the case within the Federal Circuit Court rules.

When we initially filed our complaint, it was with a prosecutorial mindset. We wanted evidence. We wanted prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Officer Reichert was in the wrong. Through out the course of this case, the city of Collinsville has done an excellent job of preventing us from getting the videos that would we believe will prove that we were not the first bad traffic stop for Officer Reichert. The end of this case was no different. There were potential litigation tactics that the defendants could have taken that would have limited our discovery, or worse yet, caused us to potentially be on the hook for their costs.

We felt that without being able to collect our evidence combined with the added risk, it was pointless to move forward with case. After the Seventh Circuit ruling, wherein it stated that Reichert violated our 4th Amendment rights, we proved what we set out to prove. All that was left for us was to collect damages and recover attorneys fees. The settlement amount was about as fair as it could be and was paid by an insurance company that assumed liability once the city surpassed its deductible. A bit disheartening but as good as it was going to get for us within the civil process.

The silver lining: The Seventh Circuit ruling in our favor. Huff v Reichert is now published and precedent within the Seventh Circuit and pursausive throughout the United States. The flimsy excuses used as reasonable suspicion by Reichert were deemed invalid and the court re-affirmed that police officers have rules to abide by just like everyone else. If officers do not obey the rules they can and should be held accountable. Huff v Reichert is already being cited in other cases involving stops like ours.

Our case is helping people fight bad traffic stops and bad searches. That is a good thing. . . .

Using the success of our case as the framework, want to share with people our blueprint for flipping the script on a bad traffic stop. We will show exactly how to take a bad traffic stop and turn it into cash while publicly exposing the officers involved. Since the civil process is about money and this is the only recourse for people who experience these kinds of stops then the courts should be clogged with cases against bad cops. We want to ease any fears about the process. We did it so anyone can do it. Police who do these roadside shake downs are driven by monetary incentives. The courts offer financial incentives for attorneys and plaintiffs for suing police officers. Why not take advantage and get paid if your right are violated?

As for Collinsville, Michael Reichert is still employed. As a public service we plan on releasing Officer Reichert’s deposition videos. We will cut out any personal information and make them available to everyone. “Breakfast in Collinsville” and the depositions will remain online as long as Reichert is employed as a police officer. Given his history of questionable stops and the fact that he will not be penalized, we feel this is fair.

More on forfeiture coming soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/28/illegal-roadside-search-of-star-trek-fan-brings-100k-settlement/

[oyarde]

100 K . Maybe it is enough for them to tone it down a notch .