Aurora [Illinois] is trying to keep a little more than $190,000 it seized from two brothers after one of them was pulled over in a traffic stop that didn’t even result in a traffic ticket.
Officials have refused to hand back the money even though a judge has sided with the brothers. The matter is due back in court today.
Jesus Martinez, 27, was carrying $190,040 when his pickup truck was stopped by an Aurora police officer about 8:30 p.m. Oct. 18 near Indian Trail and Timberlake roads.
The police officer confiscated the cash, and the city has informed Martinez and his brother, Jose, 34, that Aurora will seek to keep it through civil forfeiture, a procedure that allows police agencies to seize property where the legal standard is lower than proof needed in a criminal forfeiture.
The brothers are home remodelers. Neither has been charged with a crime in this case, and neither has a criminal record, according to Kane County court records.
“I’ve never seen anything like this in 30 years of practice,” said Aurora attorney Patrick Kinnally, who is representing the brothers. A month after the stop, Kinnally filed a complaint arguing that Aurora had no right to keep the money. Eleven days after that, Kinnally and lawyers representing Aurora appeared before Kane County Circuit Judge Michael Colwell.
“Their lawyers basically said the city was going to file for forfeiture,” Kinnally said. “The judge asked on what basis. The lawyer said, ‘We don’t know,’ and the judge said: ‘This is America. Give it back.’”
Yeah, like that will work in Police State America.
Welcome to George W. Bush’s legacy.
Dopey and Cheney
[Brought to you by the Irrelevance Anti-Matter Foundation]
#39 – What amount of cash is the illegal amount in America?
Anon==any amount that is the proceeds from illegal activity. Therefore, any and all amounts. Or: one cent or more.
Silly Child.
#43 I get all your points Bobbo. And certainly if the brothers could not account for the cash, they should have had it seized.
But that’s not the point of the article. The point is that it was proved that the cash was legally obtained and the county STILL won’t hand it back. Despite a judge ordering them to do so.
THAT’S the point of the story. Not whether it should have been taken or not.
#44–Leather==I chose not to discuss the merits of this case “qua this case” as that is fact dependent which no one here ever does as it is actually rather tedious. To that end, I won’t quibble with your rendition of the case other than to say you have the the key issue wrong.
No, my posting has been to the issue of civil forfeiture as a concept in law. Should it exist at all? I say yes, others have said no.
You say nothing.
I think people like you should disappear.
I think the editor is loosing control of his emotions right there. I should let badgers lose on him for that.
BTW $200 grand in a car? Is the home remodeling business doing that well or are they conducting bidness on the side? Maybe the officials know this and can’t prove it.
#40 I’m looking specifically for this year stories.
Amendment 1 has to be Wikileaks as a “freedom of the press” story
Amendment 4 has to be the TSA story
Amendment 10 has to be the AZ SB1070 story.
The rest are neither not obvious or too many to choose from. I’m probably going with the never ending GITMO mess for amendment 6
Amendment 3 is a toughy, as it is kind of an archaic amendment but this sad story fits well enough.
#39, also: #9, #15, #18, #40, #43, and #45.
I wasn’t making a prediction how this case will turn out. I just don’t think it is good law. It is evasive in substance, through and through. Since we can’t prove you did something wrong and the money can’t adequately defend itself let’s blame the money. Who did the crime? The money did it!
This is an externality of poor political policy. Victimless crimes are understandably hard to prosecute. So you have to take extra steps, because the ends justify the means. That is exactly the same crap that Bush, with help, pulled regarding unlimited detention and torture.
Example: Who would be eligible for a Jack Bauer style interrogation and a complementary trip to gitmo?
Probably not a perfect sequential list:
non-us person, captured on the battlefield, fighting w/o uniform
us citizen, captured on the battlefield, fighting w/o uniform
(il)legal alien, captured domestically
citizen, captured domestically
end
By using a legal band-aid anyone could be deprived of the Bill of Rights. And that was… okay. It all came out of the problem trying to BS a spectrum of legal shades between war and peace. Create a new legal name for a banned activity and a category of villain not previously encountered. Wow, no rules! Awesome.
This is the same deal, but directed at your stuff. Couldn’t an excessive car, house, jewelery, or investment be seized following the same logic? Losing a receipt or any banking records pertaining to the financing of the asset, would be tantamount to losing the asset itself.
Imagine making a system of it. Many people can’t produce legal proof of ownership for the vast majority of the stuff in their houses, except that it happens to be sitting there. To increase efficiency it could even be contracted out!
This fast and loose view of property in the US is a relatively recent vintage. Its status today doesn’t indicate the ultimate durability of the idea.
As always, one can hope.
#47–ArianneB==looks to me you should just admit there are no Third Amendment Cases?
#48–Chris==too silly.
Bobbo is right.
Cops show up a drug bust and blow it. You still confiscate the $191 large. It isn’t because it is illegal to have $191K on you, it is because you have $191K on you at a botched drug bust.
Funny that most of you would accuse the cops of being bumbling idiots if they didn’t confiscate it in such a scenario.
Like Bobbo said, it is a common sense issue. If they really go it from home remodeling then they can demonstrate that via invoices in the court system. But of course they can’t.
To those that have been brainwashed above…
Cash is legal to carry and just because you have a big scary wad of money does not automatically mean that you are a criminal. I’ve seen little old ladies pay multi $1000s in cash for items in stores.
So do you want to have some state sponsored thug beat her over the head and steal her money? (which has happened to people in the news mostly at traffic stops. They were completely innocent but never got their money back.) Or how about people calling the cops because some old man tries to pay for something at Best Buy with $2 bills, and the employees are too stupid to realize that $2 bills are legal tender. Or how would you like the government and banks to seize your house out of the blue and tell you that you have to present legal standard of proof? Then when you present your mortgage, deed or tax records – they say it is not good enough or fraudulent – and then take your house regardless of the burden of proof… Oh wait… that is already happening as well. Where is the common sense in these examples?
Link to house stealing activity:
http://www.foreclosurelawfirms.com/resources/foreclosure/loan-modification/banks-stealing-homes.htm
“…When Jason Grodensky bought his modest Fort Lauderdale home in December, he paid cash. But seven months later, he was surprised to learn that Bank of America had foreclosed on the house, even though Grodensky did not have a mortgage.”
I guess that the VISA ‘Cash is Evil’ propaganda campaign worked on a lot of people. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty concept? Oh wait… we lost that already too… Now it is “you’re guilty.. no judge no jury… oh and thanks for letting me steal everything from you.”
I guess we’re all just SOL then. The system is broken.
hmeyer, this guilty until proven innocent bullshit has to stop.
The burden of proof lies with the government, not with the individual. There’s a shit load of really good reasons for this.