TN - Man loses $22,000 to cops. No charges filed, no arrest made.

[Anti Federalist]

Ummm...

Do Not Talk To Cops.

STFU and exercise your right to remain silent.

Do Not Consent To Any Search, Ever.

Dumbass from NJ got an expensive lesson in just how much he was "doing wrong".

Luckily he got his money back after a period of months, most people are not so lucky.





Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

By Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter

MONTEREY, Tenn. -- "If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America."

That was the reaction of a New Jersey man who found out just how risky it can be to carry cash through Tennessee.

In this latest case, a Monterey police officer took $22,000 off the driver -- even though he had committed no crime.

"You live in the United States, you think you have rights -- and apparently you don't," said George Reby.

As a professional insurance adjuster, Reby spends a lot of time traveling from state to state. But it was on a trip to a conference in Nashville last January that he got a real education in Tennessee justice.

"I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally," Reby added. "I didn't do anything wrong."

Reby was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County, when he was stopped for speeding.

A Monterey police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

That's when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion that it was drug money.

"Why didn't you arrest him?" we asked Bates.

"Because he hadn't committed a criminal law," the officer answered. (sic - I'm assuming he meant hadn't broken any criminal law. - AF)

Bates said the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason to be suspicious.

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

"But it's not illegal to carry cash," we noted.

"No, it's not illegal to carry cash," Bates said. "Again, it's what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, "But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?"

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.

Bates is part of a system that, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has discovered, gives Tennessee police agencies the incentive to take cash off of out-of-state drivers. If they don't come back to fight for their money, the agency gets to keep it all.

"This is a taking without due process," said Union City attorney John Miles.

A former Texas prosecutor and chairman of the Obion County Tea Party, Miles has seen similar cases in his area.

He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That's why George Reby was never told that there was a hearing on his case.

"It wouldn't have mattered because the judge would have said, 'This says it shall be ex parte. Sit down and shut up. I'm not to hear from you -- by statute," Miles added.

George Reby said that he told Monterey officers that "I had active bids on EBay, that I was trying to buy a vehicle. They just didn't want to hear it."

In fact, Reby had proof on his computer.

But the Monterey officer drew up a damning affidavit, citing his own training that "common people do not carry this much U.S. currency."

Read Officer Bates' affidavit

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.

"Or the money could have been used to buy a car," we observed.

"It's possible," he admitted.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was trying to buy a car?

"He did," the officer acknowledged.

"But you did not include that in your report," we noted.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there."

So why did he leave that out?

"I don't know," the officer said.

Bates also told the judge the money was hidden inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from locating it."

"That's inaccurate," Reby said. "I pulled out the bag and gave it to him."

And even though there was no proof that Reby was involved in anything illegal, Bates' affidavit portrays him as a man with a criminal history that included an arrest for possession of cocaine.

That was 20-some years ago," the New Jersey man insisted.

"Were you convicted?" we wanted to know.

"No, I wasn't convicted," he answered.

But Officer Bates says that arrest -- which he acknowledged was old -- was still part of the calculation to take Reby's money.

"Am I going to use it? Yes, I'm going to use it because he's been charged with it in the past -- regardless of whether it's 10 or 15 years ago," he said.

Attorney John Miles said he's frustrated with attitudes toward Tennessee's civil forfeiture laws, which make such practices legal.

"We are entitled not to be deprived of our property without due process of law, both under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal Constitution -- and nobody cares," Miles said.

"Nobody cares."

This year, state lawmakers debated a bill to create a special committee to investigate these "policing for profit" issues. That bill died in the last days of the legislative session.

After Reby filed an appeal, and after NewsChannel 5 began investigating, the state agreed to return his money -- if he'd sign a statement waiving his constitutional rights and promising not to sue.

They also made him come all the way from New Jersey, back to Monterey to pick up a check.

He got the check, but no apology.

"If they lied about everything in the report, why would they apologize?" Reby said.

And, with that, he was ready to put Tennessee in his rearview mirror.

"I really don't want to come back here," he said.

As for the appeals process, Reby was able to provide us and the state with letters from his employers, showing that he had a legitimate source of income.

It took him four months to get his money back, but it usually takes a lot longer for most people.

And that, Miles said, works to the benefit of the police.

He had two clients where police agreed to drop the cases in exchange for a cut of the money -- $1,000 in one case, $2,000 in another. In both cases, that was less than what they might have paid in attorney fees.

Miles called that "extortion."

[JWZguy]

Thanks for your posts. I'm sure you're well aware this "cops have free reign to steal your cash" has been going on for decades....in fact hearing Ron Paul speak out against the war on drugs and the resulting loss of freedoms and progression towards a total police state is the thing that first drew me to him many years ago.

As an aside, this is another reason I love Bitcoin. It can't be stolen by thugs. (Although obviously you have to secure your data.)

[tod evans]

This is going on in all of the states not just Tenn.

[Yieu]

"And he couldn't prove it was legitimate," Bates insisted.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The People do not have to prove anything, the onus is on the accuser to prove their accusation, in court. No matter who the accuser is.

It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

[Travlyr]

The People do not have to prove anything, the onus is on the accuser to prove their accusation, in court. No matter who the accuser is.

It's right there in the Bill of Rights.
Yeah. They do not have any right to the money at all.

This is a very good lesson. Thanks to the OP. I always travel with cash but I'll never talk to a cop again and I will always plead the 5th in court from now on.

[tod evans]

The People do not have to prove anything, the onus is on the accuser to prove their accusation, in court. No matter who the accuser is.

It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

And every state in the union has passed legislation that permits them to not only confiscate money but property too!

No more laws!

[jkr]

hiway men
they have become the terror they promissed to protect us from
they were only protecting themselves




oh (its been a while) f Tennessee!

[Travlyr]

hiway men
they have become the terror they promissed to protect us from
they were only protecting themselves




oh (its been a while) f Tennessee!

That is an excellent observation.

Solving the hiway robbery problem is how the Rothchild bankers got started. During times of peace hiway robbers would stop people on the road and steal their gold. In times of war warriors would do the same. Rothchild figured out how to set-up five branch banks in different areas to keep the gold safe and then people only had to carry paper while traveling. It was easy for travelers to conceal a paper gold receipt. The certificate could be redeemed at any Rothchild bank branch upon arrival.

[jmdrake]

Sad story. The correct answer to the question "Can I search your vehicle" is always "no".

[tod evans]

Sad story. The correct answer to the question "Can I search your vehicle" is always "no".

And 99 times out of 100 if the cop even thinks there's brownie points for him personally you will be detained, a phone warrant issued and your car searched.

There is no sane way to avoid this as the law stands.

[moostraks]

"The safest place to put your money if it's legitimate is in a bank account," he explained. "He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it's safer."

Is that so now? Ya gotta hope that karma causes this man to bank with someone like BOA and get a good dose of how secure and easily accessible cash is in a bank account. Highway robbery men, no doubt...

[moostraks]

And 99 times out of 100 if the cop even thinks there's brownie points for him personally you will be detained, a phone warrant issued and your car searched.

There is no sane way to avoid this as the law stands.

You can be passive or you can be passive aggressive. Let them work for it. No reason to just lay down and die. The longer they are tied up with a person the fewer stops they can make. So if it is going to occur you might as well be a wrench in the wheel than the grease.

[jmdrake]

And 99 times out of 100 if the cop even thinks there's brownie points for him personally you will be detained, a phone warrant issued and your car searched.

There is no sane way to avoid this as the law stands.

Even so, you're still better off not cooperating than cooperating. Just say no to breathalysers to despite threats of "implied consent" laws. Those who resist get better deals later. Also even with a "phone warrant" you can argue in court that there was no probable cause if you don't consent to begin with. There is a reason police ask you for consent. If you fail your duty and say "yes" then probable cause is no longer needed. Always say no.

[phill4paul]

Even so, you're still better off not cooperating than cooperating. Just say no to breathalysers to despite threats of "implied consent" laws. Those who resist get better deals later.

Depends. In N.C. it is an automatic one year D.L. revocation fro breathalyser refusal. Regardless of the outcome of the arrest. Even if you are found NOT GUILTY of D.U.I. you still lose the license.

[jmdrake]

Depends. In N.C. it is an automatic one year D.L. revocation fro breathalyser refusal. Regardless of the outcome of the arrest. Even if you are found NOT GUILTY of D.U.I. you still lose the license.

Yeah. But the context of the thread is TN. ;) In TN you are much better off taking the implied consent violation. The worst you get for that is loss of your license for a year, which is what you are going to get with a DUI anyway. Without the breathalyser evidence the prosecutor can't up your punishment based on the BAL, so he's more willing to offer you a deal. Crazy I know. But that's my state.

[aGameOfThrones]

"I said, 'Around $20,000,'" he recalled. "Then, at the point, he said, 'Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, 'No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

George Reby: I used to be a "if you have nothing hide" guy, but now I'm a "Do you have a Warrant" guy.


Bates is probably in the 95% good.

[tod evans]

You can be passive or you can be passive aggressive. Let them work for it. No reason to just lay down and die. The longer they are tied up with a person the fewer stops they can make. So if it is going to occur you might as well be a wrench in the wheel than the grease.

Oh believe me I don't play well with others.:cool:

[Lishy]

OH HEY WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE DRUG WAR BECAUSE MARIJUANA IS A GATEWAY TO HARDER DRUGS, MKAY?

[Anti Federalist]

And 99 times out of 100 if the cop even thinks there's brownie points for him personally you will be detained, a phone warrant issued and your car searched.

There is no sane way to avoid this as the law stands.

No, there isn't and good point.

Keep in mind folks, that just by saying "no" does not mean for one second that the cops are not going to toss your vehicle.

They are, all it will take is a phone call to a rubber stamp judge to get a warrant.

But without your consent and no probable cause, it makes it harder, not impossible, just harder to pin whatever, if anything they may find or plant on you to use later in court.

[kcchiefs6465]

No, there isn't and good point.

Keep in mind folks, that just by saying "no" does not mean for one second that the cops are not going to toss your vehicle.

They are, all it will take is a phone call to a rubber stamp judge to get a warrant.
But without your consent and no probable cause, it makes it harder, not impossible, just harder to pin whatever, if anything they may find or plant on you to use later in court.
All it would take is a little bit of P.C. 'Your eyes look a little glossy sir, do you mind stepping out of the vehicle?' The unmistakable smell of marijuana is another 'convenience.' If they feel you do not have the money for an attorney to tear them a new a-hole, they will just skip the theatrics and rip your car to pieces.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, "The Video" yet again.

Required watching for those who have not seen it yet.


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

[moostraks]

Oh believe me I don't play well with others.:cool:lol....I am accused of the same thing quite often.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, "The Video" yet again.

Required watching for those who have not seen it yet.

Is this directed towards me? Or just a general must-see? I watched it many years ago and it definitely taught me a lot. (highly recommend) I especially love where he concludes that anything said will not be used to your benefit but rather the opposite. He made the point with a very simple example, though I can't remember what, and frankly it's irrelevant what his example was. Nothing you say will be used to your benefit. My advice is this: be as aware as possible of your states' laws and only give the basics; name, date of birth, etc. A general statement would be that of never talk to the police. (Though depending on where you live, silent treatment doesn't always go over too well and you are liable to get beat the hell up) I always make sure that my voice is clearly heard: "I am not resisting in any way, (because they always say I am "tensing up") I usually repeat the first sentence many times in case the camera didn't pick up over the barrage of profanities/why are you getting tense accusations. I then say that, "Should you use that taser when it is clear (back to step one) I will have charges filed for excessive force and sue you and your department. I'm generally treated like an American after that. It's become sort of a habit. A ridiculous, "where TF do I live," sobering moment, habit.

[Keith and stuff]

This is going on in all of the states not just Tenn.

Likely so. TN has a major reputation for cops stealing people's money without charges. Heck, it is so common, even TV stations in TN cover it. But I'm sure it happens in other states. I think I heard it was common in AR when I lived in the area.

[Sam I am]

Always talk to a Lawyer (http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police) You're more likely to get your money back that way.


The police REALLY don't want you to bring these kinds of issues to court, because if your claim goes to a higher court, and you win there, the police will no longer be able to seize assets like that anymore.

[kcchiefs6465]

Likely so. TN has a major reputation for cops stealing people's money without charges. Heck, it is so common, even TV stations in TN cover it. But I'm sure it happens in other states. I think I heard it was common in AR when I lived in the area.
Common in Ohio; so common in fact, that they give you a receipt. The receipt is usually less than what you had on you, (In my case around 300 dollars turned into 64 dollars) and is just to say your money was used for booking/processing. In all actuality I am sure I 'donated' to a good cause; my county's very own drone. :mad:

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

" didnt u know u not 'sposed to have any money mundane !

thats what we're here for , now go grovel and sleep under a bridge til we're ready to come back and give u a ass whooping every now and then, when we feel like it "

[oyarde]

Common in Ohio; so common in fact, that they give you a receipt. The receipt is usually less than what you had on you, (In my case around 300 dollars turned into 64 dollars) and is just to say your money was used for booking/processing. In all actuality I am sure I 'donated' to a good cause; my county's very own drone. :mad: How do you know when you are dealing with a govt entity ? When $300 turns into $64.

[Anti Federalist]

No no, just a general "must see".

I make it a point to post that every so often for the benefit of those who have not seen it yet.

And good advice, yes, let me make that clear as well, I'm not talking about the "silent treatment", a hello, or name is one thing.

I am talking about anything past that, even an answer to a simple sounding question: "do you know how fast you were going?" is, legally, a trick question, there is no way you can answer that without tripping yourself up.


Is this directed towards me? Or just a general must-see? I watched it many years ago and it definitely taught me a lot. (highly recommend) I especially love where he concludes that anything said will not be used to your benefit but rather the opposite. He made the point with a very simple example, though I can't remember what, and frankly it's irrelevant what his example was. Nothing you say will be used to your benefit. My advice is this: be as aware as possible of your states' laws and only give the basics; name, date of birth, etc. A general statement would be that of never talk to the police. (Though depending on where you live, silent treatment doesn't always go over too well and you are liable to get beat the hell up) I always make sure that my voice is clearly heard: "I am not resisting in any way, (because they always say I am "tensing up") I usually repeat the first sentence many times in case the camera didn't pick up over the barrage of profanities/why are you getting tense accusations. I then say that, "Should you use that taser when it is clear (back to step one) I will have charges filed for excessive force and sue you and your department. I'm generally treated like an American after that. It's become sort of a habit. A ridiculous, "where TF do I live," sobering moment, habit.

[Anti Federalist]

This is going on in all of the states not just Tenn.

Yes, yes it is.

TN law just seems to be one of the worst due to this:


He said that, while police are required to get a judge to sign off on a seizure within five days, state law says that hearing "shall be ex parte" -- meaning only the officer's side can be heard.

That, coupled with the fact that the money stolen goes right into the pockets of the departments that are extorting it, makes this a recipe for disaster.

[Anti Federalist]

I had posted this before, but it deserves a re-post.

These same TN cops were found to be letting drugs go, and waiting for the return trips to seize the cash.




Highway Robbery

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/22/highway-robbery-3/

Kudos to Nashville’s News 5 for doing this investigation. Note that even if you buy into this crap—that the drug war is worth fighting, and that asset forfeiture is an essential part of fighting it—the cops are letting the drugs go in order to pursue the cash. And that’s not just in Tennessee. In my asset forfeiture piece for Reason, I found academic papers noting incidents in which cops would find a stash house, but wouldn’t bust the place until all or most of the drugs had been sold. There’s no return on a house full of dope. There’s plenty of return on a house full of cash.

And of course all of that is really beside the point. The more fundamental problem, here: This is just state-sanctioned robbery by another name.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTeH9D_tN-k&feature=player_embedded

[tod evans]

That, coupled with the fact that the money stolen goes right into the pockets of the departments that are extorting it, makes this a recipe for disaster.

But, but........it's for the kids...

[kcchiefs6465]

How do you know when you are dealing with a govt entity ? When $300 turns into $64.
Because I had around 300 dollars in my pocket. That day, I closed my local bank account because I was moving out of city and they didn't have a PNC branch where I was going to be staying at. I have the 'receipt' for 64 dollars.
ETA: It f#$!@#$ figures, I type a page long of background info and my computer shuts down :mad: :mad: Summary: two DUIs one traffic case (per se DUI laws); 6 days in county; stole my money; gave me receipt; passed their "tests" with flying colors; "convicted" solely on that I refused their tests on grounds of unconstitutionality (at first); thus when I say I have never been convicted, it is semantics, I have never been brought to trial to face my accusers and hear the evidence (which there isn't).>Really annoyed. 30 minutes of my life wasted because of a g.d. "power" key. Where's the smiley that throws computer screen across the room?

[LibForestPaul]

Even so, you're still better off not cooperating than cooperating. Just say no to breathalysers to despite threats of "implied consent" laws. Those who resist get better deals later. Also even with a "phone warrant" you can argue in court that there was no probable cause if you don't consent to begin with. There is a reason police ask you for consent. If you fail your duty and say "yes" then probable cause is no longer needed. Always say no.

Also, it allows your lawyer to contest any actions the police had undertaken later on.

[Anti Federalist]

The epic Will Grigg's take on this story.


Officer Larry Bates: The Face of Highway Robbery in Tennessee

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112098.html

Posted by William Grigg on May 14, 2012 08:31 PM

Officer Larry Bates: Highway robber, impenitent perjurer

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/The-Face-of-a-Thief-and-Liar.jpg

In the State of Tennessee, highway robbery in the name of "asset forfeiture" is commonplace — and Monterey PD Officer Larry Bates, who stole $22,000 from New Jersey businessman George Raby, is the embodiment of this unfathomably corrupt practice.

Reby, an insurance adjuster, was stopped for speeding by Bates on Interstate 40. Like too many honest and innocent people, Reby made the mistake of answering questions posed by the armed stranger who materialized at the driver's side door.

Bates asked if Reby was carrying any large amounts of cash.

"I said, `Around $20,000," Reby recalled in a television interview with the Nashville CBS affiliate. "Then, at that point, he said, `Do you mind if I search your vehicle?' I said, `No, I don't mind.' I certainly didn't feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money."

In fact, the ingenuous businessman actually handed the money to the officer.

What Reby didn't understand is that through the practice of "civil asset forfeiture," every traffic stop is a potential highway robbery — and police everywhere are encouraged to view cash and other valuables as subject to confiscation on the pretext that they are "proceeds" of narcotics trafficking. All that is necessary is for the officer to cobble together what he considers a plausible statement justifying his suspicion — however emancipated from the facts of the case — that the money or valuables is connected to actual or potential narcotics commerce.

Bates didn't arrest Reby. He did, however, steal his money, later insisting that this was proper because the businessman "couldn't prove it was legitimate." In the work of fiction he filed later as an official affidavit, Bates invoked his "training" to justify the seizure, insisting that "common people do not carry this much currency."

"On the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two ounces of cocaine," Bates told a news reporter for Channel 5, as if this crashing non sequitur ended the discussion.

Reby explained — and documented — that he had an active eBay bid on a car. Pressed by the reporter, Bates admitted that Reby had said as much during the traffic stop.

"But you did not include that in your report," the TV reporter pointed out in his interview with Bates.

"If it's not in there, I didn't put it in there," simpered the officer — offering an evasive answer of the sort that comes readily to a practiced liar and thief.

Asked why he hadn't mentioned this germane fact in his report, Bates took refuge in sullen silence before replying: "I don't know."

Bates had told the judge that Reby had hidden the money inside "a tool bag underneath trash to [deter] law enforcement from finding it."

While it is indeed a good idea to conceal your money from armed robbers in government-issued costumes, Reby had done nothing of the kind: "That's inaccurate; I pulled out the bag and gave it to him," he told the reporter.

Making use of access to a computerized database, Bates learned that Reby had been arrested on suspicion of cocaine use twenty years ago, but never convicted. It's quite likely that the same is true of at least some of the people who work alongside Officer Bates.

In Tennessee, forfeiture proceedings are conducted ex parte, which means that the judge only heard the thief's side of the story. Reby didn't learn about the hearing until well after the fact — and if he hadn't gone to the media, it's likely he would have lost his money permanently. He had to travel back to Tennessee in order to get a check that was reluctantly written by a police department that refused to apologize for robbing him at gunpoint.

Spectacles of this kind are common on Interstate 40 in Tennessee, where officers from two drug task forces prowl the highway in search of cash they can seize through civil asset forfeiture.

Kim Helper, District Attorney for Tennessee's 21st Judicial District, insists that the highway robbery scheme 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." Of course, those two objectives — "continued funding" and "an end to drug trafficking" — are mutually incompatible.

Officers assigned to the task force often ignore actual narcotics shipments, choosing instead to focus almost exclusively on seizing money. This means concentrating on the westbound side of the highway, where the cash is believed to be found, rather than the eastbound lane, which is supposedly used to shuttle drugs in from Mexico.

As Nashville's CBS affiliate reported last year, the salaries paid to the officers involved in this highway robbery ring are paid directly out of the cash and other assets seized by them; this means that police often find themselves competing to stop and shake down the same cars, sometimes nearly coming to blows in the process.

Larry Bates is an appropriate poster child for the Highway Robbers in uniform who haunt Interstate 40.

[truelies]

I've heard that every time a decent person out in the world sends a cop to Hell the Angels in Heaven Clap. If thats not true, it ought to be.

[angelatc]

I find it amazing that the news team was so seemingly incredulous over this. The cops have had "the right" to do this for 20 years now. The War On Us continues.

[Henry Rogue]

Highway robbery. They might as well wear masks, oh thats right they do when they break into your house and kill you and your bog.

[Henry Rogue]

I had posted this before, but it deserves a re-post.

These same TN cops were found to be letting drugs go, and waiting for the return trips to seize the cash.




Highway Robbery

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/22/highway-robbery-3/

Kudos to Nashville’s News 5 for doing this investigation. Note that even if you buy into this crap—that the drug war is worth fighting, and that asset forfeiture is an essential part of fighting it—the cops are letting the drugs go in order to pursue the cash. And that’s not just in Tennessee. In my asset forfeiture piece for Reason, I found academic papers noting incidents in which cops would find a stash house, but wouldn’t bust the place until all or most of the drugs had been sold. There’s no return on a house full of dope. There’s plenty of return on a house full of cash.

And of course all of that is really beside the point. The more fundamental problem, here: This is just state-sanctioned robbery by another name.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTeH9D_tN-k&feature=player_embedded
LOL looks like they are going to kill each other over a turf war. Problem solved.

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW, this made the LRC front page today. Good warning for folks: DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE.