This is hilarious.

  1. Voice of reason says:

    The officer got caught lying in the police report so that he could fill his quota of out-of-state monetary seizure.

    IMHO, failure to put exculpatory evidence in a police report should result in jail time, or loss of job at the very least. Prosecutors do this on occasion, and it usually results in an innocent party being punished.

    • Publius says:

      Jail time for bad government workers is necessary

      The other government workers are watching, and they all take notice when nothing happens to bad actors

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

    Just for grins—anyone want to go high/low on the odd’s of this guy actually being involved in a drug deal? I’d go 90% on the facts presented to the cop alone. Not high enough for a criminal conviction, but enough to seize to property.

    That is afterall what a trial/hearing is all about.

    Failure of cop to include exculpating info?==immediate return of property without need to argue.

    I do assume in this case the guy can and did present the money trail and odds are 10% he was in another drug deal.

    Facts are supposed to make a difference.

  3. MartinJJ says:

    The police state isn’t coming, it is already here. Thats what ya get when you let criminals run the country. Trigger happy morons calling themselves cops. The guy is lucky he was not tasered or shot on the roadside over it.

    Other examples it can get out of hand quickly:

    – homeless man killed by cops:

    – Mother of 3 arrested for taking pics of tourist attraction:

    Scary stories? It’s only the beginning.

  4. Brian says:

    here’s another one for the list: a guy was playing with his dog in his back yard, when a cop busted through the gate responding to a call AT THE WRONG ADDRESS and shot the guy’s dog dead. Unapologetic afterward, too.

  5. orchidcup says:

    Forfeiture takes two distinct forms — criminal and civil. Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal.

    Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. Thus, the proceeding is directed against the res, or the thing involved in some illegal activity specified by statute. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in rem forfeiture does not require a conviction or even an official criminal charge against the owner. This is the source of its attractiveness to law enforcement, and its threat to those concerned about abuse or circumvention of Constitutional protections.

    Backgrounder on Forfeiture

    • Dallas says:

      Good clarification and insight.

    • Bear Naff says:

      How can we use civil forfeiture to take things away from abusive police departments? I can’t believe that so generic a tool doesn’t have a huge attack surface for exploitation.

  6. NewfornatSux says:

    Liberals are always wishing to take cash from people, anytime they feel like spending more money.

  7. FanOfFreedom says:

    Never talk to the police. Never.

    If you get stopped for speeding, take your ticket in a conciliatory fashion and STFU.

    That’s the only lesson here.

  8. Josh says:

    I’m a cop and I think this is crap!

    • Good says:

      You may be one of the good cops, then. EVERY field has those who take pride in their work, and those who manipulate their position for their own ends, or who just do a s#!t job. If I’m a crappy burger-flipper, I won’t impact your life as much as if I’m a crappy LEO. That’s why many non-LEO’s don’t trust cops much; the bad apples give the rest of you a bad name. I’m not knockin’ you, but I’d be surprised if you, as a LEO, have never met another po-lice that you think does no credit to the badge.

  9. TThor says:

    Unbelievable! Only in America…

  10. Joe Momma says:

    This one post per day… if that…. thing is sucking. This post was on top yesterday at this time.


  11. Nik says:

    There doesnt need to be an investigation into policing for profit – what this country truly needs is an agency that enforces the US constitution no matter who.

    The US constitution was once upheld without questioning by law enforcement, by the military, even by the secret services. And that is the way it should be – there cannot be any other way.

    Since 9/11 and a bunch of “terrorism” laws, the idea has taken a hold that, under special circumstances, the constitution does not apply, or can be ignored – not just the letter, also the spirit. That is a fallacy that leads to excesses like the above.

    What is the constitution other than an idea. If nobody follows it, its void and this country falls to pieces.

  12. Lou Minatti says:

    This is Barack Obama’s America. Quit complaining, shut up and pay your taxes, forfeitures, fees and fines. There are starving government retirees in places like CA that are struggling to get by on their tiny 6-figure pensions.

    • The Aberrant says:

      Because money seized by a TN highway trooper and okayed by a state judge is going to pay CA retiree payrolls…

      You have no idea how state/federalism works do you?

  13. Koota says:

    Somebody should let that cop know that neck tatoos are commonly associated with felons and he may need to investigate himself from criminal behavior.

    • Jasontheodd says:

      I associate it with ugly, until I really paid attention to it I thought it was a but crawling out of his collar.

  14. rabid monkey says:

    This person who got pulled over and his cash taken did two things wrong. First he didn’t have to have to answer the cop’s question at all of how much cash he had with him. Secondly he should not have given the cop permission to search his vehicle when the cop asked if he could. Cops are not there to be your friendly neighbor. The only thing that should have happened on this stop is the cop writing the guy a speeding ticket.

  15. hannibal says:

    If this isn’t a civil and criminal lawsuit ready to happen I don’t know what is.
    This guy is an idiot, he don’t even know his rights!
    The cops out there are out for the money which is unconstitutional against his fourth and fifth amendment rights. The driver had a right not to incriminate his self (take the fifth). So when asked by the cop if you have any large amount of money, the response would of been, do you?
    If pressed by the cop, let him know I don’t have to answer any of your questions.
    He was unlawfully detained, unlawfully searched and he property was unlawfully seized. I’m smell at least 50 thousand dollars lawsuit easy….
    The cop had no probable cause to even ask if he had money.
    However since the driver gave his consent to the cop, he in effect has waived his constitutional rights on the spot.
    What a complete Bozo!
    Well I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t have nothing to hide.

    • John E. Quantum says:

      When the officer asked him if he had a large amount of cash, the correct response is “Now officer, you’re not asking for a bribe, are you?”

  16. Uncle Patso says:

    This has been going on since well before Obama’s election to the presidency, even before 9/11, I think. Courts have even signed off on the legality of it.

    The only amendment still in force, as far as I can tell, is the 4th — no troops quartered in people’s homes in peacetime. So far.

    • The Aberrant says:

      That’s the third amendment.

      (Ironically, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, like this one.)

  17. Rob Share says:

    No John, it’s not hilarious, it’s disgusting.

  18. Leonard says:

    I know longer feel sorry when I hear news that a cop has been shot and killed and I have grown to loath law enforcement. This is a police state or country whichever you prefer and just like Nazi Germany the people did nothing until it was to late.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5287 access attempts in the last 7 days.