Widows and Orphans Fund?
Posted by Hazel Stone | Filed under Public Servants?
Ok, right here up front I’m going to float the possibility that the reporting in this story is, typical of regional newspapers/websites, a bit shoddy. Here’s the crux:
- Car stopped for speeding
- Eager young wet-behind-the-ears deputy (on the job two whole weeks) decides the driver’s story (which is not detailed in the “article”) doesn’t add up
- Deputy confiscates $69K from the driver’s car
- Driver is released, no ticket, no arrest
A quote from the Sheriff:
“The big thing is he grabbed 69 (thousand dollars) and took it away from them,” Hanson said of the money seized. “That’s going right straight to the heart of the matter.”
Erm…what matter? The driver wasn’t arrested, not even detained. From the looks of things as reported, Deputy Fife there just committed armed robbery!
I have my Constitutional Kneejerk in a headlock here, mentally telling myself that the Baby Deputy there must have had verbal consent to search the car…since the “article” makes no mention of it. If there’s anyone out there in the Nebraska area that’s heard more detail on this case, I personally would dearly love to hear it.
Tags: say that again?
Help Support SimonJester.info!
January 14th, 2008
First off, I hate the “Drug War” and find it to be a useless waste of law enforcement resources that has given rise to ugly gang violence as well as Para-military police forces. So I find the whole idea of seizing cash under suspicion of drug trafficking to be dishonest and a violation of due process.
That being said, I would have less trouble with such cash seizure laws if law enforcement and the local DA were required to gain a conviction against the person in possession of such cash before they could keep it. As it stands, most such laws really are highway robbery as no conviction is needed, nor do they even have to level charges and take it to court.
January 15th, 2008
Unlike certain drugs and machine guns, cash isn’t contraband-it is the legal tender of the US. I’m sure there is a bank in town that also posseses some; perhaps the sheriff should rob it next.
January 15th, 2008
I hear that Europe is significantly freer than the United States in this respect. Seems that in Europe, it’s considered normal for people with a lot of money to pay in cash for large purchases if they so choose. This is banana republic behavior on the part of our government, and I think most honest people would admit that behavior like this puts the lie to the argument that what we have is really the rule of law.
January 15th, 2008
Asset Forfeiture and Eminent Domain are just logical extensions of the Direct Taxation authorized in the 16th Amendment.
Everything belongs to the government. They just let you use it, and can take it whenever they want.
January 15th, 2008
And that’s ass-backwards. Government should fear its citizens, not the other-way around…
You bastards can be REPLACED, I tell you!
January 15th, 2008
Tam, I knew when I put you over in the sidebar that you wouldn’t disappoint, and you haven’t. Thanks.
January 15th, 2008
While we’re busy repealing the 16th Amendment, can we take the 17th out at the same time?
January 15th, 2008
Motion seconded.
January 15th, 2008
I came home from a contract once with £17,000 cash in my possession (about $34,000). I think I’m glad I wasn’t coming home to America. I risked my skin to get that money.
January 17th, 2008
While we’re at it, let’s add a few new ones in there:
1) Define once and for all interstate commerce as buying and selling products across state lines, and exclude acts which aren’t a key component of buying and selling.
2) Create a parliamentary procedure whereby 2/3 of the states, voting together, can issue a vote of no confidence in the entire federal body politic, forcing the entire Senate, House and President to be reelected in a special election.