Cops Using Controversial Database To Identify Search And Seizure Targets

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
When you say this database is controversial, I guess that would depend on whether you are in it or not. I'm sure the police don't feel it is too controversial. ;)

The site was created by a counterterrorism firm called Desert Snow, and has been tapped by as many as 25,000 police officers, DEA officials, customs agents and others to share information. Some of that data includes reports about US drivers never charged with a crime, including personal data like Social Security numbers.
Click to expand...
 
I read this a few days ago. What I find even more disturbing is the cops going after money. No crimes charged, no real evidence other than a k-9 unit "alerting" to drugs. Dog alerts aren't even admissible in court.
 
The real issue is the fact they will harass anyone they think might have cash on them to seize.

Drug dealer or not. If you have more than a couple hundred dollars its getting seized.
 
There has been a huge movement to get this habit stopped, and these idiots have just made it worse. Well, it's just going to push the collapse that much faster.
 
From the article... said:
Others have warned that use of the site may violate civil rights and jeopardize cases, but several officers told the Post that when they used it, they didn't bother telling prosecutors anyway.
Click to expand...
It IS a violation of civil rights. This is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. There couldn't be any reasonable cause for suspicion that would hold up in the courts if these cases were ever brought forward, especially with them specifically targeting those without any criminal record.
 
How much personal cash can you have on you till it can be considered for contraband?
Not finding it searching.
 
This should be a RICO investigation.

Well let's see - when you incentivise something you get more of it. When you tell law enforcement that they can have some of the money they steal from people, they are going to steal more money - and don't kid yourself, this is outright theft.

If we're going to do asset forfeiture, then we need a serious overhaul:

1. All seized goods and property go to the state general fund.
2. Seizure requires a warrant - signed by a judge.
3. Seized goods are held for no more than 5 days at which point the state must present compelling evidence that the goods are products of a criminal enterprise or represent a public menace, etc. Every 30 days after, the state much go before a judge and give an update and defend the seizure - show that indictments are proceeding, etc. It should be resource intensive to seize property before a conviction and keep it seized.

I would also include that there must be a felony arrest, but I am afraid that would just tempt some departments to make a felony arrest when it's not appropriate. Perhaps not as much if they don't directly benefit but I would still be worried about it.
 
Everyone that use the database should be sent to Jail for 1 year per access.
You used it 50 times in order to fuck with those you were supposed to serve and protect?
50 years in jail you corrupt asshole!
 
Puny civilians. Thinks they have rights :D

7khZn.jpg
 
The US constitution isn't perfect

but it is sure better than what we have now
 
If you are stopped.

1) Never tell a police officer you have cash
2) Never consent to a search
3) You are not required to wait for a k-9 search
4) If the officer fails to give you a citation in a timely manner you are permitted to ask them if they are going to arrest you, if they say they are not going to you can leave.
 
DoubleTap said:
This should be a RICO investigation.

Well let's see - when you incentivise something you get more of it. When you tell law enforcement that they can have some of the money they steal from people, they are going to steal more money - and don't kid yourself, this is outright theft.

If we're going to do asset forfeiture, then we need a serious overhaul:

1. All seized goods and property go to the state general fund.
2. Seizure requires a warrant - signed by a judge.
3. Seized goods are held for no more than 5 days at which point the state must present compelling evidence that the goods are products of a criminal enterprise or represent a public menace, etc. Every 30 days after, the state much go before a judge and give an update and defend the seizure - show that indictments are proceeding, etc. It should be resource intensive to seize property before a conviction and keep it seized.

I would also include that there must be a felony arrest, but I am afraid that would just tempt some departments to make a felony arrest when it's not appropriate. Perhaps not as much if they don't directly benefit but I would still be worried about it.
Click to expand...

You're right about needing an overhaul, but let me tell you where you're wrong about how these work.

1. this is mostly the way things are, and the encouragement for abusing the system. The state should never be allowed to lay their hands on this. All these assets seized should be cashed out through auction and all the money go to a fund, uncontrolled by the government, for treating drug addicts and/or paying back victims. As long as the state gets to keep the money, they'll use it for their own ends, and that is NOT good for the people.

2. Seizure needs to REQUIRE a conviction of a crime, not just a warrant. Freezing assets, sure, for a limited time, with a warrant. To allow seizure with a warrant, they don't need to prove any wrong doing. It WILL be abused.

3. All well and good, but you're redefining things. This would be a freeze on assets, not seizure. Seizure, which they are doing now, is fully taking the asset and using it for their own ends. Just taking it as holding it would be a freeze or hold.

The big thing here is that they are seizing assets, cars, cash, precious metals, from innocent people, not convicted or even suspected in a crime, and using the money from those assets for their own purposes. Some police forces in Texas and Louisiana are having huge parties and buying hot tubs with this money. It's total abuse of the system, and needs to be stopped.

The only way it can be stopped is through court battles, and only those people who have been caught in this can fight it. They still haven't made the mistake of hurting someone with enough money to take this to the Supreme Court.
 
Seizures should not be instantly liquidated. The police should be forced to pay for the maintenance of seized assets until any and all appeals are completed. This would make them really think about what they are seizing. Why do you think they are now targeting cash? Because there is little to no accountability, can be used instantly and paid back with taxpayer funds if need be, also they hold no liability for the insurance of seized assets.
 
Not potentially illegal, but it is illegal. I don't say this as an armchair lawyer, my company has been developing and working with police and sheriff's departments on analytics software for LPR data for many years. About 5 years ago, we sat down with a bunch of lawyers and went over a lot of scenarios, this was one of them. Even cross referencing with other Federal or state databases (non-criminal) is not allowed.
 
m heisty said:
I read this a few days ago. What I find even more disturbing is the cops going after money. No crimes charged, no real evidence other than a k-9 unit "alerting" to drugs. Dog alerts aren't even admissible in court.
Click to expand...

No but dog alerts are reasonable cause and justification for search, they just are not admissible as evidence of drug possession/trafficing which means you can't be convicted just cause a dog "says" you had drugs before even tho a search turns up nothing.
 
lcpiper said:
No but dog alerts are reasonable cause and justification for search, they just are not admissible as evidence of drug possession/trafficing which means you can't be convicted just cause a dog "says" you had drugs before even tho a search turns up nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh come now Icpiper, why the weak sauce?

We are counting on you and CUG to articulate the statist case in defense of conviction free asset seizure.
 
lcpiper said:
No but dog alerts are reasonable cause and justification for search, they just are not admissible as evidence of drug possession/trafficing which means you can't be convicted just cause a dog "says" you had drugs before even tho a search turns up nothing.
Click to expand...

Do you know why dog alerts aren't allowed in court? I'll save time and let you know ahead of time. It was cut down by the SCOTUS because dogs are unreliable, but more importantly it is because they are coachable to create alerts where no alert is actually present. What you are advocating is a shredding of the 4th amendment, this creates an environment where there is no expectation of unreasonable search and seizure. If a dog can create "probable cause" the police have no limits because they can now create probable cause anytime they want. Sorry mr police apologist that is not how the constitution works. It is the law of the land, not merely a pesky thing that can be ignored at any time.
 
Armenius said:
It IS a violation of civil rights. This is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. There couldn't be any reasonable cause for suspicion that would hold up in the courts if these cases were ever brought forward, especially with them specifically targeting those without any criminal record.
Click to expand...

Well I'll be sure to sue if they do it to me.

Stupid concept, I have been looking for who said it, that the innocent people who had their cash seized were forced to sign a document agreeing not to sue before they could get their cash back. I call Bullshit, first thing I would do is refuse to sign and sue them for my cash and whatever else I could get on top of it. It's ridiculous to think this would be a deterrent.
 
lcpiper said:
Well I'll be sure to sue if they do it to me.

Stupid concept, I have been looking for who said it, that the innocent people who had their cash seized were forced to sign a document agreeing not to sue before they could get their cash back. I call Bullshit, first thing I would do is refuse to sign and sue them for my cash and whatever else I could get on top of it. It's ridiculous to think this would be a deterrent.
Click to expand...

The deterrent is the cost of lawyers. Police should be forced to pay for their own defense out of their own budget. That alone would cut down on 90% of this bullshit.
 
Again heisty, I didn't say a damn thing about dog reports being used in court. I said Dog Alerts are justification for search, if the search turns something up then they sure as fuck don't need the dog's alert to convict, it only shows justification for search and that is why they use them.
 
lcpiper said:
Again heisty, I didn't say a damn thing about dog reports being used in court. I said Dog Alerts are justification for search, if the search turns something up then they sure as fuck don't need the dog's alert to convict, it only shows justification for search and that is why they use them.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't thats the fucking point. A dog is not reliable, it has been proven again and again they respond to handlers. So because a dog "alert" the cops search someone and find a joint. Now they get arrested and processed. Where is the reasonable suspicion? There wasn't any, it was created.
 
m heisty said:
If you are stopped.

1) Never tell a police officer you have cash
2) Never consent to a search
3) You are not required to wait for a k-9 search
4) If the officer fails to give you a citation in a timely manner you are permitted to ask them if they are going to arrest you, if they say they are not going to you can leave.
Click to expand...

And then the worry of if your going to get taz'd or shot for resisting arrest or some other made up charge.
 
m heisty said:
If you are stopped.

1) Never tell a police officer you have cash
2) Never consent to a search
3) You are not required to wait for a k-9 search
4) If the officer fails to give you a citation in a timely manner you are permitted to ask them if they are going to arrest you, if they say they are not going to you can leave.
Click to expand...

The moment you leave, you will either:
A. get tazed
B. get shot
C. get mauled
D. all the above.
 
MrGuvernment said:
And then the worry of if your going to get taz'd or shot for resisting arrest or some other made up charge.
Click to expand...
Yup. When a cop has you pulled over, you're basically their plaything. Whether or not their behavior stands up in court later is beside the point.
 
What you guys are missing here is that, yes, we as Americans do have rights and due process, but our property does not. It doesn't need to be convicted of a crime to be taken, it just has to have been involved in one or linked to one or said it was involved. They don't have to prove it, you do. Therein lies the problem.
 
MrGuvernment said:
And then the worry of if your going to get taz'd or shot for resisting arrest or some other made up charge.
Click to expand...

Resisting arrest can only be used if they tell you they are arresting you. Which by the way in these situations is actually preferable to giving up your cash. Civil seizures are way more difficult to overturn, rarely if ever take place in an actual court, are far more time consuming to complete, and have no recourse for your time. If you are arrested then criminal seizure has to be used and the burden is now on the state to prove you are a criminal and therefore the assets are ill gotten gains. There is a reason so many of these cases civil seizure is pressured on to the people, because the burden of proof incorrectly has been placed on the victim because they signed a paper that said they "don't know where the cash came from". As with so many other things it has become a revenue source for police departments that have made foolish promises to their officers as far as pensions and other benefits go, that have made foolish purchasing decisions, along with bad long range planning as to how to actually solve these problems. Stealing money from people as just become a way to make these problems go away on the short term.

Another interesting fact about that class action lawsuit in Philly, almost 8 million dollars has gone to the local PD from the near 70 million in seizures. Of that 8 million dollars has gone to paying salaries, bonuses, and equipment for the PD and the district attorneys office. Zero dollars has gone to funding drug and crime prevention/reduction programs. According to the state guidelines, civil seizures can not be used to pay salaries or incentives, and something like 50% must be used for prevention and reduction programs. No corruption to see here folks.
 
the-one1 said:
The moment you leave, you will either:
A. get tazed
B. get shot
C. get mauled
D. all the above.
Click to expand...

Actually no, if you ask if you are going to be arrested and the office replys you are not. You are now under no obligation to stay. Police officers can not hold you indefinitely. If they try to it is actually a felony offense of false imprisonment. If they say you are not under arrest and proceed to do any of the above actions while you leave, they are committing a crime even if they never get charged for it.
 
m heisty said:
Actually no, if you ask if you are going to be arrested and the office replys you are not. You are now under no obligation to stay. Police officers can not hold you indefinitely. If they try to it is actually a felony offense of false imprisonment. If they say you are not under arrest and proceed to do any of the above actions while you leave, they are committing a crime even if they never get charged for it.
Click to expand...

Oh, then that's good. Because that would never happen. I've never watched a video of "STOP RESISTING" when someone didn't comply with a "lawful order" to stop or answer a question or get out of the vehicle at a DUI checkpoint. My opinion on those that purposely question authority at those aside (some do it just to get the officer aggravated and get it on film), their rights are being violated. They weren't being arrested. They didn't commit a crime. The cop said they were when they didn't roll their window down or whatever. I have no idea on the outcome of lawsuits against them or anything, though. Did they get the felony false imprisonment or did they get a paid administrative leave vacation or a slap on the wrist....

I think a lot of these individual cops should be brought up on charges for going against the constitution. Locked up. They should be called out, instead of just letting more and more slowly erode the constitution by taking more and more and people think it's normal and ok. I'm glad to see some of these stories. As long as it's not "Cops are bad", but "Some cops are being dicks". I've said it before - some cops are amazing and are doing their job for the right reasons. They'd help you change a tire if you needed it. Others just like that power and control.
 
m heisty said:
Actually no, if you ask if you are going to be arrested and the office replys you are not. You are now under no obligation to stay. Police officers can not hold you indefinitely. If they try to it is actually a felony offense of false imprisonment. If they say you are not under arrest and proceed to do any of the above actions while you leave, they are committing a crime even if they never get charged for it.
Click to expand...

dare you to try that in the real world
 
m heisty said:
Actually no, if you ask if you are going to be arrested and the office replys you are not. You are now under no obligation to stay. Police officers can not hold you indefinitely. If they try to it is actually a felony offense of false imprisonment. If they say you are not under arrest and proceed to do any of the above actions while you leave, they are committing a crime even if they never get charged for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not. But there's a difference between what the law is and what actually happens. I'm also not saying all cops are like that, but enough are that one might as well keep their mouth shut and not agitate the cop to further erode the situation.
 
the-one1 said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not. But there's a difference between what the law is and what actually happens. I'm also not saying all cops are like that, but enough are that one might as well keep their mouth shut and not agitate the cop to further erode the situation.
Click to expand...

Anything you say CAN and WILL be held AGAINST you in a court of law.

All you need to know when dealing with the boys in blue.
 
m heisty said:
The deterrent is the cost of lawyers. Police should be forced to pay for their own defense out of their own budget. That alone would cut down on 90% of this bullshit.
Click to expand...

They do, they have their own attorneys and they are payed for by .. guess who? ....Me and YOU mutherfucker :D
 
lcpiper said:
They do, they have their own attorneys and they are payed for by .. guess who? ....Me and YOU mutherfucker :D
Click to expand...

So you seem to be happy they are stripping our rights and costing us money doing so? I say fuck that, make those motherfuckers pay for it.
 
Not happy at all, that's not glee man, that's shared empathy.

But I never have issues with the cops, never seen these things going on where I live. Must be a problem from the big cities cause I never see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top