MOORHEAD, Minn. (AP/WCCO) — A waitress in Minnesota is suing after $12,000 was left at her restaurant table — she says it was a tip but police say, it’s drug money, according to The Forum.

The lawsuit was filed in Clay County District Court and alleges that the waitress found a box, left at her table at the Fryn’ Pan restaurant in Moorhead. She said she followed the customer to her car to return the box but the woman told her to keep it. The waitress said she found bundled rolls of cash inside the box, totaling $12,000.

She said even though she has five children and could use the money, she decided to call police, according to The Forum.

Officers told the woman to wait 90 days in case someone claimed the money. The Forum reports that after three months, police told the woman the cash was being held as drug money.

I smell a rat. Let’s hope she wins her case against the crooks…er, cops.



  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    So….we are to believe that drug dealers or other criminals are more likely to give away their money than the waitress is to have stolen it?

    Wait!==The waitress called the police?–or did her jealous co-workers call the police “on her?”

    Something doesn’t add up. Criminals being what they are. Money being what it is. Yada, yada.

    It is interesting how variable the law are about “found” property. Everything from the State gets is all, to finders keepers. Hadn’t heard about the finders fee before.

    Something doesn’t add up……..usually doesn’t when Hoomans are involved.

    • Pays2Think says:

      The only thing you said that makes any sense is that “Something doesn’t add up..” and that’s because the news agency (AP) decided to publish a story with almost no real information. It’s just another lazy, piece of crap that passes for journalism.

  2. Lou says:

    The lesson here is never call the police.

  3. msbpodcast says:

    Unfortunately the innocent days of “The Friendly Cop On The Beat” went out with All In The Family and Richard Nixon.

    Cops are now just people who pepper spray innocent by-standers or peaceful protestors.

    How could you doubt that they cops in Minnesota are not just calling any amount of cash drug money and just seizing it for themselves?

  4. jpfitz says:

    Never, ever ever ever call the popo unless you want to be harassed or arrested. The days of officer O’Leary coming to your aid or just listen to your problem is history.

  5. Cursor_ says:

    Uffdah!

    Cursor_

  6. pedro says:

    I’m pretty sure this is only repuke’s fault’

  7. skunkman62 says:

    how do you get away with copypasta the complete article?

  8. NewfornatSux says:

    They usually steal the pictures too.

  9. deowll says:

    I don’t know what the person did to get the money and neither do the police. This is simple theft by the thieves in blue.

  10. B. Dog says:

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

  11. Rick says:

    If you test most paper money in circulation, they have traces of illegal drugs. So its all pretty much drug money.

  12. The0ne says:

    I hate cops, period; maybe my cousin less since he is my cousin but I know he doesn’t follow the law to the letter as well.

  13. sargasso_c says:

    Have you people even ever been to Moorhead?

  14. NewfornatSux says:

    So she gave the money to the police thinking it might be drug money, and is now upset that they are holding her money thinking it might be drug money?

  15. Angel H. Wong says:

    And her attorney fees after this legal battle? $24,000.

  16. Voice of reason says:

    What’s the over/under on how fast it took the responding officers to decide to take the money for themselves? I’m thinking 1 second.

  17. Uncle Patso says:

    This whole no-due-process confiscation of “Drug Money” is quickly becoming a huge industry that smells to high heaven of “protection racket” and “organized crime” and a threat to constitutional rule. There are highways in Texas and Louisiana that are infamous for stripping people (especially people of color) of their vacation money, rent money, even grocery money, with no legal recourse for a “redress of grievances.”

    Not that I ever have, let alone carry, more than a few dollars in cash, but if I ever did, especially while traveling, I’d get rid of it as quickly as possible — either deposit it in a bank account, buy a bunch of money orders or load it onto a pre=paid Visa or MasterCard at the first opportunity.

  18. John Kannenberg says:

    If she “did the right thing”, why did she give it to the police? Does she first give all her tips to the police?

  19. Norskeguy says:

    She got the money back on Thursday. The county attorney ruled in her favor. She has 5 kids and says she will use it to pay some bills

  20. Rwolf says:

    Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

    Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.

    It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow——the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications by using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities” that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe might relate to a cyber threat or crime—circumventing the Fourth Amendment—with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an element or self-protected cyber entity, that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.

    Despite some cities and counties banning and restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset forfeiture sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses, expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to institute arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to the Federal Government that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.

    Consider: if CISPA is passed by Congress it will provide Government, police and government contractors (without warrants) the incentive (to take out of context) any innocent—hastily written email, fax or other Internet activity to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, assess fines and or civilly forfeit a business or property. U.S. Government can use CISPA to (certify any employee) including employees that work for a Government certified cyber self-protected entity—opening the door for certified employees to spy on their employers and clients. U.S. Government is not prohibited from paying any person including Government Certified Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements or Certified Employees part of government forfeited assets or other compensation that result from the aforementioned providing U.S. Government a corporation’s confidential information or clients’ private information—that otherwise would require a warrant. U.S. Government currently contracts on a fee/commission basis with Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements and Contractors that have security clearances to participate in facilitating arrests and Government asset forfeitures.

    Currently Government can’t use evidence obtained through illegal Internet searches of e.g. private emails and transmitted files without a warrant, however that will change if CISPA or a similar bill is passed by Congress. Since CISPA, two additional cyber-security bills have been created in the Senate called, “The Cyber Security Act of 2012” and “SECURE IT Act”. Both bills appear unconstitutional; appear designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. The Cyber Security Act of 2012 formally known as S. 2105 was created by Senate Democrats, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Similar to CISPA, the Cyber security Act of 2012 would abolish legal walls that stop Federal government and private companies sharing information.

    The SECURE IT Act: S. 2151 was introduced by Senate Republicans on March 1st 2012: would require federal contractors to alert government about any cyber threats, forcing such communications between government regulators and corporations. The SECURE IT Act authorizes sharing of persons’ private Internet information (without a warrant) going beyond what is necessary to describe a believed cyber threat. SECURE Act fails to create a regulatory system at the Federal level to oversee cyber-security threats opening the door for a person or businesses’ confidential information to be misused and misappropriated by government agencies and private cyber entities.

    Government should be prohibited from using independent contractors, created non-profit organizations and so-call (certified self protected cyber entities) to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. Corrupt police, U.S. Government Agencies and Government Contractors may too easily use private Internet transmissions, emails and transmitted files it is free to collect without a warrant to extort corporations, politicians and Citizens; or sell confidential information gleaned from warrant-less Internet Surveillance. Confidential Information in corrupt hands can be worth more than illegal drugs.