I have it on good authority that on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:55:40 -0700,
"richard" <don@john.son> wrote:

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-D277E2.01084226112006@news.west.earthlink.net...

In article <ekb69v01usi@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-0A22B9.19543125112006@news.west.earthlink.net...

In article <eka4nv0303r@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard"
<don@john.son> wrote:

What we have here is a case of a sheriff wanting to keep a large
sum of money simply because he believes the money is used in
illegal drug activity.

Yep, that's usually why law enforcement tries to forfeit property.
It's better than letting the criminals keep it.

That is only after a conviction of a bona fide drug related criminal
act. You're claiming that the lady is a criminal without benefit of
a reasonable doubt simply because of the amount of the money? You'd
make an excellent hanging judge.

So far, he has no proof of that.

"So far"? You expect them to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt
before they even begin an investigation?

What investigation? They hauled her ***** off to jail right from the
airplane. Excuse me sir, but that might also be illegal detention.

Following that logic, everyone who is hauled away under
suspicion of committing a crime would be detained illegally.

What was his probable cause to detain the

lady and the cash? None. He only had a tip from a phone call from
an anonymous person, and as you know damn good and well, that is
not sufficient
evidence for probable cause.

Before I engage you in this discussion, show me where "probable
cause" is the standard needed for forfeiture. If you look into it,
you'll see that this is irrelevant. You don't need probable cause
for forfeiture.

Yeah you do. Without it, no case. No case, no forfeiture.

Did you read the article you cited? It mentions that a
forfeiture hearing can be held regardless of any conviction.

So the cops stop you and they find $200,000 in cash in your car
along with a receipt from a casino for the same amount. They can
keep the money simply because of the amount might be drug related?

Yes, though the receipt would damage their claim for probable
cause to confiscate it.
Did she have a receipt showing she won the money at a casino?

How many times do you have to be told? It is not illegal to carry
large sums of cash.

How many time do YOU need to be told no one is claiming it is.
It is suspicious, and many times an investigation will show something
illegal was done to get the money, or was going to be done with the
money.
To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened in here, so
the money should be returned.

In fact, in NY, for some crimes you can be acquitted and STILL have
your property forfeited. And those laws have been upheld by the
courts, since forfeiture is not a criminal proceeding, so a lower
standard of proof is employed.

That's an acquittal. If one is found out right not guilty, then ALL
property which is legal must be returned.

Could you cite where in the New York Code this is stated?

But we're not talking about an illegal
seziure in this case. Just some ***** cop who thinks some generous
old lady is a drug dealer.

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. We don't have access to the
information the investigation brought up. If/When we do, we can make
a better determination.
From what little I've been able to find on-line, the
investigation failed to produce any evidence of illegal activity. As
such, the money should be returned.

There is no law in this country that states that the carrying of
large sums
of money equals illegal activity. So unless the sheriff can come
up with proof that granny was directly tied to illegal activity,
then he has lost the case and the money must be returned to the
lady.

How about we wait to see what the judge has to say about it

Using this so called Money transmitters code as a means to justify
the bust,
is pure *****.

There was no "bust." No one was arrested. But it seems strange to
me that you're saying it is "*****" for police to utilize a law
when they suspect wrongdoing.

No arrest? Excuse me? Oh there most certaainly was dear boy. If the
lady was not arrested, then why is the judge on the case?

Richard, the law isn't always like you see it on Law & Order.
There are several levels of judges. Probate judges, Bankruptcy
judges, Criminal judges, and so on.
That a judge is involved does not mean any criminal charges
were filed.

Oh silly me. It's about the
***** cop who wants to keep the money for himself. Hell, she
should just sue the ***** in civil court for 10 times that.

Anyone can file a suit against anyone for pretty much
anything. And for any amount they wish to name. This doesn't mean
they'll win.

From what I understand, this is a state law thing, not a federal.

This shows your complete lack of understanding.

Since the lady was detained at the airport before she could make
contact with anyone, the law has not yet been violated.

Stop creating false arguments. She isn't accused of violating any
laws.

No? I beleive you already said which law it was, dumbfuck.

That's the law the sheriff is using to justify keeping the
money. She's not been charged with violating that law.