Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (6100)	7/9/2007 2:22:24 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25737

I understand your points and agree completely about worrying about unfettered seizure abuse by the police. But, as you already know, the woman in this case would appear to be far from the ideal poster girl for the cause. If someone can make a solid case that mere possession of cash automatically leads to seizure along with little or no recourse in the courts and becomes the property of the local department making the arrest, then sign me up to get hot on the subject. There might be good examples of abuse out there, but this one is not it.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (6100)	7/10/2007 8:47:20 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

I was reading the court findings. Ugly .. The majority of the Michigan court decided to ignore the exclusionary law. They seemed to seek and use any available loophole. Consider .. If you had read the story and the money was not mentioned, would you have thought this woman was a mule? Almost everyone would have thought not. Instead, the money was the main evidence. Also .. they used "good faith" logic to include it into consideration. A good faith example could be where the officer has a warrant. Then later it is discovered that the warrant was issued improperly. It is not the officers fault that the warrant is bad. Therefore the officer had acted in "good faith." Here the officer acted in bad faith. He should have known that it was an improper search. If he didn't, he needs to get a new job and not be allowed to interact with the public again. Over and over again, the judges referred to "good faith" as a reason to consider forfeiture of the money. The court record says that the prosecution had proven that the woman was a mule. That proof consisted of records that she rented cars several times. Our state is running out of money to pay for state police. Every one needs to be very very careful, as the state police have found new ways to pay for themselves.