The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Police take $190,040 during traffic stop, won't return it https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4917 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Police take $190,040 during traffic stop, won't return it |
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010 ... order.html Quote: Aurora 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.'" The judge ordered the city to return the $190,040, along with a month's interest and costs. But Kinnally said that when he brought the order to Aurora, the city refused to turn over the cash, saying it planned to appeal the judge's order. Aurora argued that the judge had overstepped his authority, but the 2nd District Appellate Court in Elgin rejected the appeal on Monday on technical grounds. Aurora's legal department has not responded to requests for information. And it now appears that the city no longer has the cash. Jesus Martinez received a certified letter last weekend from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Dated Dec. 2, the letter states the Department of Homeland Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized the money from Aurora, and that the cash is subject to forfeiture under U.S. codes dealing with drug transactions. Geneva attorney Kathleen Colton, who initially was approached by the Martinez family, said the brothers are "absolutely not involved in drugs or drug dealing." Colton did defend another Martinez brother and a cousin on 2002 drug charges. The men were convicted, but an appeals court later overturned the convictions. The charges against them were dropped, though both men were deported because they were not in the U.S. legally. According to the complaint filed by their lawyer, Jesus Martinez and his passenger cooperated with the Aurora officer who stopped them. Martinez consented to be personally searched, and he allowed police to search his pickup. A canine unit was called in to assist. The officer found the sack of cash and asked Martinez about it; he said it was the family's savings. Colton said Jesus Martinez had just picked up cash his brother had collected from other family members and was on his way to his father's to give him the money so his father could pay off his mortgage and retire to Mexico. This is why you should never consent to a search. |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I suspect that the city will be ***** by the judiciary into compliance. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: Jesus Martinez received a certified letter last weekend from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Dated Dec. 2, the letter states the Department of Homeland Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized the money from Aurora, and that the cash is subject to forfeiture under U.S. codes dealing with drug transactions. Nope, looks like the municipality is out of it now, and the Feds have it. Good luck guys. |
Author: | Khross [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Police take $190,040 during traffic stop, won't return i |
It won't. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
This is why day by day I grow more comfortable with the idea of anarchy. |
Author: | Squirrel Girl [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Police take $190,040 during traffic stop, won't return i |
Technically, withholding the money at this time makes the city's action 'willful and malicious' and hence subject to triple indemnity. IE the city should pay back three times the amount taken. However, Khross is right, they will NEVER get a penny back. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Aizle wrote: I suspect that the city will be ***** by the judiciary into compliance. Of course, because the government usually fixes these sorts of things. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They should now start on a plan to get their money or blood directly from the politicians involved. Start with the officers who seized the funds in the first place. |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: Quote: Jesus Martinez received a certified letter last weekend from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Dated Dec. 2, the letter states the Department of Homeland Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized the money from Aurora, and that the cash is subject to forfeiture under U.S. codes dealing with drug transactions. Nope, looks like the municipality is out of it now, and the Feds have it. Good luck guys. So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Aizle wrote: Vindicarre wrote: Quote: Jesus Martinez received a certified letter last weekend from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Dated Dec. 2, the letter states the Department of Homeland Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement seized the money from Aurora, and that the cash is subject to forfeiture under U.S. codes dealing with drug transactions. Nope, looks like the municipality is out of it now, and the Feds have it. Good luck guys. So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp |
Author: | Khross [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Aizle wrote: So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. Habeus corpus and all that jazz means what? Honestly, it doesn't change the circumstance one bit, because they haven't substantiated such things in a court of law. And since the parties involved were not committing a crime at the moment of seizure, it's an illegal seizure at that. But, you know ...We don't care about laws or due process in this nation anymore. And I'll bet you didn't even consider your implicit subversion of those concepts in your response. That's a scary, scary thing ... |
Author: | Ienan [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. Habeus corpus and all that jazz means what? Honestly, it doesn't change the circumstance one bit, because they haven't substantiated such things in a court of law. And since the parties involved were not committing a crime at the moment of seizure, it's an illegal seizure at that. But, you know ...We don't care about laws or due process in this nation anymore. And I'll bet you didn't even consider your implicit subversion of those concepts in your response. That's a scary, scary thing ... *sage nod* Exactly what I was thinking. You can't seize the property unless the person is found guilty. If it's part of an investigation, then it needs to be returned upon the end of the investigation and trial. Unfortunately, laws have been made to bypass the 4th Amendment yet again. *sigh* |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. Habeus corpus and all that jazz means what? Honestly, it doesn't change the circumstance one bit, because they haven't substantiated such things in a court of law. And since the parties involved were not committing a crime at the moment of seizure, it's an illegal seizure at that. But, you know ...We don't care about laws or due process in this nation anymore. And I'll bet you didn't even consider your implicit subversion of those concepts in your response. That's a scary, scary thing ... All my response was meant to say is that there appears to be more to this story than is reported in the OP. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. Habeus corpus and all that jazz means what? Honestly, it doesn't change the circumstance one bit, because they haven't substantiated such things in a court of law. And since the parties involved were not committing a crime at the moment of seizure, it's an illegal seizure at that. But, you know ...We don't care about laws or due process in this nation anymore. And I'll bet you didn't even consider your implicit subversion of those concepts in your response. That's a scary, scary thing ... All my response was meant to say is that there appears to be more to this story than is reported in the OP. In what substantial way? Were they convicted of a crime? Hell, as far as I can tell, they weren't even charged! So how is "well, we *suspect* it's from a drug deal, so we stole it" any less heinous than "we felt like stealing it." |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Last I saw in the article was the the state was appealing the judge's decision. |
Author: | Stathol [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Which they can do; but you don't get to ignore the judgement in the meanwhile. When someone is found guilty of a crime, they go straigt to jail (do not pass go, do not collect $200), and that's where they'll they'll stay until they can make a successful appeal. They don't get to ignore the ruling just because they plan to appeal. So the city is absolutely in contempt of court, whether they kept the money themselves or gave it to some other agency. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: So that sounds like there is a claim that the money is from drug profits, which changes the game a bit. Habeus corpus and all that jazz means what? Honestly, it doesn't change the circumstance one bit, because they haven't substantiated such things in a court of law. And since the parties involved were not committing a crime at the moment of seizure, it's an illegal seizure at that. But, you know ...We don't care about laws or due process in this nation anymore. And I'll bet you didn't even consider your implicit subversion of those concepts in your response. That's a scary, scary thing ... All my response was meant to say is that there appears to be more to this story than is reported in the OP. Quote: 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. Aizle wrote: Last I saw in the article was the the state was appealing the judge's decision. Quote: The judge ordered the city to return the $190,040, along with a month's interest and costs. But Kinnally said that when he brought the order to Aurora, the city refused to turn over the cash, saying it planned to appeal the judge's order. Aurora argued that the judge had overstepped his authority, but the 2nd District Appellate Court in Elgin rejected the appeal on Monday on technical grounds. In any event, once the people allow laws that let law enforcement seize property on "suspicion", without even charging someone, we deserve what we get. |
Author: | Aizle [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Ah, I missed the rejected appeal. If that's the case, that is indead **** up. It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Seems to pretty blatently step on the balance of power if the article is to be believed. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
These types of situations happen more often than you'd think, with everything from drugs and money laundering to solicitation of prostitution. Law enforcement merely needs to state that you were in an area or acting like someone who would be involved with these offenses (like carrying cash or being in an area with prostitutes), and they take your cash or car or other property, and you have to prove you are innocent (without being charged in many cases) before you get it back (minus any fees, of course), and you 'd better hope you prove your innocence before your property is sold off, or "lost". |
Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Fire. Explosions. Lots of both applied liberally to multiple areas and people. |
Author: | Rafael [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:17 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Aizle wrote: All my response was meant to say is that there appears to be more to this story than is reported in the OP. So? They weren't charged with anything much less convicted. And even if they are eventually tried and convicted and that the money is indeed the product of unlawful activities, the seizure is still Unconstitutional. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:22 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Did I mention the use of various forms of fire and explosions that needed to be used? |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Did I mention the use of various forms of fire and explosions that needed to be used? Yawn. If that was your cash, you would do no such thing. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Hannibal wrote: Did I mention the use of various forms of fire and explosions that needed to be used? Yawn. If that was your cash, you would do no such thing. Be careful, fire works on trolls too. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Hannibal wrote: Did I mention the use of various forms of fire and explosions that needed to be used? Yawn. If that was your cash, you would do no such thing. His father's life savings to save his home? Pretty sure he would. Pretty sure any decent human being would. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |