New Jersey Man Has $22k Stolen From Him by Tennessee Police
43 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSIrfP81-ms[/media]
Text in case you cant watch the video for some reason:
[quote]When George Reby was pulled over for speeding in Putnam County, Tennessee, little did he know it was going to cost him $22,000 despite never being charged with a crime.
An insurance investigator from New Jersey, Reby was driving down Interstate 40 on his way to a convention. He had $22,000 in cash with him, rolled up in 22 $1000 packages in a bag, which he intended to use to purchase a car that he had found on eBay. From the video provided by NewsChannel 5 in Nashville, Reby was stopped for speeding and the following conversation between Reby and Office Larry Bates took place:
Bates: Are you carrying any cash?
Reby: Around $20,000.
Batest: Do you mind if I search your vehicle?
Reby: No, I don’t mind.
From there it all went downhill. Bates seized the money under the suspicion that Reby might be planning to use the money to purchase illegal drugs. When interviewed by NewsChannel 5, Bates was asked why he was suspicious:
Bates: The safest place to put your money, if it’s legitimate, is in a bank account…. It draws interest and it’s safer.
NewsChannel 5: But it’s not illegal to carry cash?
Bates: No, it’s not illegal to carry cash. Again, it’s what the cash is being used for….
NewsChannel 5: But you had no proof that money was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?
Bates: He [Reby] couldn’t prove it was legitimate.
It took four months for Reby to get his money back from the Monterey, Tennessee, police department.
In another equally outrageous example of cash confiscation, which took place at the Houston airport, a family flying to Ethiopia to celebrate their daughter’s birthday disclosed that they had more than $10,000 in cash with them. Their final destination was Addis Ababa, a city that runs mostly on cash. When it was discovered that they had more than $31,000 in cash and travelers checks with them, TSA agents confiscated it all.
In this case Kyle and Berekti Jones had to sue to get their money back. U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes wrote a scathing opinion about the systematic deceit conducted by the four agents involved:
Six officers appeared at the trial, four of whom testified. A “case agent” sat with the government’s counsel. He knew nothing. His sole contribution had been to enter data into a computer; he could not have assisted the United States attorney. In addition to overreaching the people whom they are to serve, three officers wasted one-half day watching four others embarrass themselves.
The government presented no evidence — none — that the Joneses intended to evade the reporting requirements. Kyle told Hernandez that he did not know the amount of money he was carrying. Saying “I do not know” is not a deliberate failure to report. After Hernandez insisted on an answer, Kyle said that he would have to guess. Guessing is not a material omission or a misstatement of fact — certainly not one the government can use to steal the money.
The agency’s official publications say that its officers can help travelers complete the form if they require assistance. Instead of ensuring that the Joneses understood the scope of “monetary instruments” and other reporting requirements, the officers took advantage of their guess. Hernandez instructed Kyle to complete the form before allowing him to count his money, and the others never let them correct it once their guess was shown to have been low.
These public servants sought to earn credit with their agency by collecting money. Some of it is returned to the agency — like justices of the peace whose pay is derived directly from the fines they impose. They focused on bureaucratic imperatives — not their duties to the public and law….
A lack of leadership at the agency allowed this. Its mission statement — which none of the officers could recall at the trial — is to serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism. They displayed none of these. The agency says that integrity is its cornerstone; that its officers are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. A gang of armed security officers bullied this family — a family who cooperated with the officers to their detriment. Our homeland will not be secure by these rascals. They played agency games, abused the people they are to serve, and violated their oaths to support the Constitution.
Hughes ruled that Kyle and Berekti Jones must get their money back, plus court costs.
A battle over civil asset forfeiture is raging in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, where a motel is being seized because, according to the local police and the DEA, it “facilitated” some drug related activity. The owners, Russ and Pat Caswell, are mystified and frightened. The motel has been in the family for two generations and has rented out its rooms more than 125,000 times since 1994, with about 30 drug-related arrests taking place there over that 18-year period. If the taking is successful, it will essentially render the Caswells penniless as they were depending upon the property for their retirement. As George Will put it:
Civil forfeiture law treats citizens worse than criminals, requiring them to prove their innocence. [In the Caswells' case they have] to prove they did everything possible to prevent those rare crimes from occurring in a few of those rooms.
The Caswells are getting help from a public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice (IJ), which claims that the police and the DEA are violating the Caswells’ rights guaranteed under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits “excessive fines,” and under the 10th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from overriding state laws — in this case its reserved power and primary authority in enforcing criminal law.
The IJ says that “civil asset forfeiture is one of the worst abuses of property rights in our nation today” and has published a study, “Policing for Profit,” which examines the issue and rates each state on how easy, or difficult, it is for local police authorities to confiscate private property from citizens without accusation or conviction but merely on “suspicion.” Said Scott Bullock, a co-author of the report,
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.
Bullock’s solution to the continuing and growing outrage of civil asset forfeiture — some $1.6 billion has been confiscated under these laws so far — is simple: Follow the Constitution: "Law enforcement should be required to convict people before taking their property."
[/quote]
"You can't prove that it was legitimate!"
lolrights
We might have some really fucking beautiful mountain scenery but goddamn there's a lof of stupid people here.
I can sort of understand how a man carrying $20k around in cash is sketchy, this is still stupid as hell on the officers part. But he should not have handed over the money to the officer, there was no reason the officer could have taken it from him. I would have made the officer call a superior or something. It sounds ridiculous but that is a lot of money.
That is some grade A bullshit right there. This is what happens when you mix people who don't give a crap about anyone else, a job that requires them to give a crap about anyone else, and then base their pay around crap like this.
That reporter's voice is really strange.
Guilty until proven innocent...
I would have said no to searching my car, especially with that much money involved. The officer had no reason to ask if he had any cash on him anyways, and the guy had to reason to say that he did.
guilty until proven innocent is [I]my[/I] favorite method of justice
[Quote]Its mission statement — which none of the officers could recall at the trial — is to serve the American public with [B]vigilance, integrity, and professionalism.[/B][/quote]
Haha, what? The TSA mission statement? They sure get the first one right at least.
Wow, way to legally steal peoples money, TN
[quote]It took four months for Reby to get his money back from the Monterey, Tennessee, police department.[/quote]
At least this wasn't entirely a lost cause.
[editline]21st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=areolop;36045710]Wow, way to legally steal peoples money, TN[/QUOTE]
read the full article, this is no isolated case or location
The guy's an idiot for letting the cop search his car in the first place.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;36045729]
read the full article, this is no isolated case or location[/QUOTE]
In the video it said ".. This is legal in Tennessee.."
Due process of law?
[B]PFFT, HAHAHA YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT?[/B]
If you have to say "He can't prove it's legitimate", you SHOULDN'T BE SEIZING IT. Presumed innocence is dead.
Also, never ever consent to a search of your car. Let them wake up a judge for a warrant and drag out the K9 unit and all that bullshit, but don't ever give consent. Let them make complete asses of themselves.
The way they say money on the video is really annoying. "muhn-ee"
Oh, and it sucks about that guy. I hate the police in most instances. It seems like they're only serving themselves, and not the people.
that police officer is a fucking moron. he isn't even smart enough to realize he's making himself look stupid.
I love news channel five, I wish Clark was still there.
Actually looking forward to Lankist's input on this thread, for a change.
Ok, what made this guy think that carrying around $22k in hard cash was a smart idea?
If he was going to use it to buy a car, he has two options on what he should have done.
If he used a bank with nationwide locations (like Regions), he should have waited until he arrived at the seller's location before withdrawing. If he didn't use a bank like that, he should have written the guy a check for the car. He could've gone with the seller to his bank, where they could've called the buyer's bank to confirm that the guy had that much in his account.
I would never carry more than say $500 on my person.
This is all part of that drug money forfeiture thing. That law makes it so you have to prove the money is legally yours, they don't have to prove it's illegal. The idiots who supported this law thought it was needed to fight drug lords, allowing law enforcement a new tool to use against them.
Needless to say, police departments all around the country use this law as a way to make some easy money. They seize lots of cash, cars, and other property because they know not everyone will fight the redtape to get it all back.
This is the same mentality behind red light cameras. Supposedly it's to help prevent accidents by encouraging safe driving, in reality it's just a way to make the maximum amount of money from ticketing drivers.
edit: Btw, you can carry as much of your money around as you want, it shouldn't be anyone's business.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36045761]The guy's an idiot for letting the cop search his car in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Many people will oblige just because they figure they've got nothing to hide and they want to cooperate.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;36047953]Many people will oblige just because they figure they've got nothing to hide and they want to cooperate.[/QUOTE]
Which is a mistake. If they don't have probable cause that can hold up in court or get them a warrant, there is no reason to make it easy for them. Their job is to find a reason to PUT YOU IN JAIL. You have absolutely no reason to assist them.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36048021]Which is a mistake. If they don't have probable cause that can hold up in court or get them a warrant, there is no reason to make it easy for them. Their job is to find a reason to PUT YOU IN JAIL. You have absolutely no reason to assist them.[/QUOTE]
Their job is to put away criminals, not to "find a reason" to put someone in jail.
Lets try that again.
[quote]Bates: Are you carrying any cash?
Correct answer: Yes.
Batest: Do you mind if I search your vehicle?
Correct answer: Yes.[/quote]
Don't talk to police more than is absolutely necessary.
I would have just not cooperated and driven off with the money. That cop isn't both judge, jury, and executioner. But I have the funny feeling that would just cause a lot more trouble.
Fuck the police.
This is why you dont allow them to search your vehicle, in Australia the cops have to have a warrant in order to search your car UNLESS you give them permission. Sure you might have to talk to them for alot longer for denying their request but if you dont want your shit seized then thats the way to go about it.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;36050811]I would have just not cooperated and driven off with the money. That cop isn't both judge, jury, and executioner. But I have the funny feeling that would just cause a lot more trouble.
Fuck the police.[/QUOTE]
That'd probably have given them an actual reason to take it away from you.
Don't worry, I'll steal some money from the cops to even it out.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36048021]Which is a mistake. If they don't have probable cause that can hold up in court or get them a warrant, there is no reason to make it easy for them. Their job is to find a reason to PUT YOU IN JAIL. You have absolutely no reason to assist them.[/QUOTE]
Then they make you stay while they try to get a warrant, thus wasting your time even more.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.