That’s hardly what he’s saying. Granted, he’s implying that every stop he makes he asks for permission to search, but that’s drug interdiction training 101. He makes no mention of race or gender, not does he imply it. Just because he can legally seize property used in the delivery or transport of drugs, and frankly says so, doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with it.

That is EXACTLY what he is saying. He doesn’t have a shred of probable cause to stop cars on the context that they may have drugs or drug proceeds in them. Unless there’s cocaine just flying out of the open trunk, or benjamins blowing out the windows… there is no possible way to know if any random car has drugs or drug proceeds in it. It all comes down to PROFILING.

The very act of stopping a car for suspicion of drug activity without probable cause is inherently illegal… so they PROFILE the possible targets, stop for whatever bullshit reason, then use the probable cause generator (K9) when the perp lawyers up (Does not consent to search.)

Not quite. He can legally seize property suspected or accused of being used in the delivery or transport of drugs. They don’t have to prove a damned thing.

Nothing wrong with that, eh?

You have to drive I40 from Memphis to Knoxville to fully understand how correct Charlie O is: It is truly disgusting.

Like a rapist or pedophile awaiting their next victim, these multi-jurisdictional task forces, always in ‘roided out vehicles, are stunningly numerous.

We have no business blowing smoke up our own asses with phrases like “…land of the free and home of the brave”.

When we put up with this nonsense, we are neither.

Remember the saying “you can’t prove a negative”? The previous statement is a prime example of it.

That said, if it’s the same entity that failed to control and improperly used their seized inventory, that should be looked at and punished severely. We in LE can be idiots and do more harm than good to our reputations because of crap like that.

Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 are laws that make it a federal crime to violate a citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that an unconstitutional law is null and void from the moment of inception, not the moment a constitutional challenge succeeds.

In an asset forfeiture case, the usual 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rules of evidence and due process are not applied to whether the asset is seized, since citizens have those rights, not land or objects.

The mere accusation is enough for a default judgment in favor of seizure; The property owner must go to court to prove not only ownership, but also that the property was not used in a crime (often an impossibility). The crime not being committed by the owner is not a defense against the seizure, there have been numerous cases where a car thief stole a car and the car was forfeited from the actual owner because the thief had illegal drugs when caught.

So it occurs to me to wonder: If you accuse a police department as a whole of violating 18USC241 and individual officers of violating 18USC242, assert that the police station itself is part of their criminal activities, could you start a forfeiture action against the property?

How about a police car that was being driven by an officer who lost a 42USC1983 lawsuit? The officer’s sidearm?

Such fascinating possibilities…