I don’t agree with this to an extent. I’m speaking for myself of course. I do remember back in the day some officers/deputies being upset when the car cameras came out. I disagreed with those folks too. I was glad to have them. On more than one occasion the camera has backed me up when someone has shown up to file a complaint based on lying about me. They always changed their tune when they realized the whole incident was recorded, audio and video. Funny thing is, I never could get the chief to get them to commit to their lies in writing so I could submit that to my attorney.
So I for one am not in fear of a camera, except for the fact that I don’t exactly look like a supermodel, maybe more like a basset hound.
As far as this asset forfeiture stuff, there are times that it needs to be done. For example, the drug task force in this area made a rather large bust on a grow operation. The guy actually hadn’t worked in years. I’ll give the guy credit, he straight up told them that’s what he had been doing for a living for several years and had bought his house, tractor and atv, among other things, with those proceeds from his drug sales. They seized all of it. That’s one case where it was a legitimate action. There are many others just like it.
Also, I assume most everyone is aware of the fact that a LOT of proceeds from drug sales goes to fund terrorism. So I am very much in favor of some drug dealer having their assets seized. There are also times when it becomes necessary to seize a habitual drunk driver’s vehicle after they keep driving it on the road while schnockered.
However, on the flip side of this issue, there are many cases where that is abused. I might venture to say that there might even be more cases where it’s grossly abused than there are legitimate cases.
I’ve been observing people for a living for the last 24 years and I really don’t know whether to completely believe that guy’s story or not, but I do know that something doesn’t feel right about his story to me. Hard to describe. That’s all I know.
BUT, I will tell you that I have had a lot of gut wrenching concern over that law for many years because of the fact that I believe it is abused. Part of that is the fact that I operate under the apparently antiquated standard that if I am going to accuse someone of committing a crime, the burden of proof is on me. Somebody is carrying a few thousand in cash? OK, can I prove that they got that money from being a drug dealer or a thief or a hitman or whatever?
I can understand if a someone is stopped with a literal tractor trailer full of vacuum packed cash (it happens very frequently). A wad of cash with a bunch of drugs and scales and baggies, quite obviously intended for distribution? Sure, hook it up. But what about Joe Schmoe carrying a few grand in cash to go buy a car. How in the crap do these people legitimately expect Joe Schmoe to prove right there on the side of the road how he earned that cash? Could be a drug dealer who’s been filtering money into an account and drew it out. But it could be hard earned cash earned from Schmoe’s Widget Manufacturing Inc. I’ve never quite understood how someone can seize someone’s property without proof that said property was the fruit of criminal enterprise.
All that to say that I don’t agree with lumping all asset seizures into the “all are crooked” category. But I also don’t agree with the unfettered free reign that some of these agencies seem to have with regard to asset forfeiture. And I DANG SURE don’t agree with these agencies deciding to fund their budgets depending on asset forfeiture. In my view, THAT LEADS TO TEMPTATION AND CORRUPTION.
I hate drug dealers and thugs and other criminals, but I get hot under the collar when I think an honest citizen of this country is getting his/her rights violated.
And another thing - at times I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe, I don't fit in any more with today's law enforcement.