• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Apparently crime does pay ... if you are a cop

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrQ

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
3,926
Points
648
Location
DFW
Resorts Owned
HICV, Westgate (second cousin, twice removed)
This is outrageous:

"While the unanimous panel acknowledged that "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," it concluded that they "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment." In other words, the cops weren't equipped with enough information to deduce that robbing people is a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures—a bizarre interpretation of the law, to say the least."​

And SCOTUS just refused to hear the case.

I wonder if they had to declare it as income to the IRS, that's how they got Capone.

If I choose to take $15,000 cash to buy a used car and get mugged, it's crime.
If I get stopped by a cop and they seize the money under civil forfeiture, it's not.
 

turkel

TUG Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
1,085
Points
524
Location
California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge
Marriott Grand Chateau
I find your headline outrageous.

I have no plans to read the article sighted in your link.

I will just say there are good and bad people in every profession and leave it at that.
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,614
Reaction score
5,783
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
I find your headline outrageous.

I have no plans to read the article sighted in your link.

I will just say there are good and bad people in every profession and leave it at that.

There's a disconnect in here somewhere. How do you know if the headline is "outrageous" (assuming you mean that it doesn't lead to the premise of the article) if you refuse to read the article?
 

WVBaker

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,087
Points
323
This is outrageous:

"While the unanimous panel acknowledged that "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," it concluded that they "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment." In other words, the cops weren't equipped with enough information to deduce that robbing people is a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures—a bizarre interpretation of the law, to say the least."​

And SCOTUS just refused to hear the case.

I wonder if they had to declare it as income to the IRS, that's how they got Capone.

If I choose to take $15,000 cash to buy a used car and get mugged, it's crime.
If I get stopped by a cop and they seize the money under civil forfeiture, it's not.

Dr. Q, let me add a bit of information to your post.

But according to Jessop and Ashjian, the officers confiscated $151,000 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins and “stole the difference” between those amounts and what was officially listed.

In their response brief, the city of Fresno and the accused officers “categorically deny that they stole petitioners’ property” and called the accusations “flimsy.” They also assert that Ashjian and Jessop weren’t charged because they had agreed to become informants. Rather than an aberration, the city and the officers argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “followed the rules for qualified immunity analysis...to the letter.”


Respondents categorically deny that they stole petitioners’ property. (2ER:271; 3ER:486, 489; see Answering Brief, 9th Cir. Dkt. # 17, 90-92.) The record is replete with evidence indicating that the petitioners’ theft accusations are flimsy.



No, I don't believe they have to claim this.

Yes, if you choose to take $15,000 cash to buy a used car and get mugged, it's crime.

If you happen to get stopped by a cop and they seize the money under civil forfeiture, make sure there's evidence to prove they did that and not just accusations.

Oh yea, do a little research and find as much information and facts as possible. ;)
 

WVBaker

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,087
Points
323
Excuse me Brett and SueDonJ, does the above help?
 

turkel

TUG Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
1,085
Points
524
Location
California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge
Marriott Grand Chateau
There's a disconnect in here somewhere. How do you know if the headline is "outrageous" (assuming you mean that it doesn't lead to the premise of the article) if you refuse to read the article?

I found the OP‘s headline for the thread outrageous not the title of the article.

Maybe just maybe the disconnect lies with the OP.
 

DrQ

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
3,926
Points
648
Location
DFW
Resorts Owned
HICV, Westgate (second cousin, twice removed)


 

DrQ

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
3,926
Points
648
Location
DFW
Resorts Owned
HICV, Westgate (second cousin, twice removed)
...

If you happen to get stopped by a cop and they seize the money under civil forfeiture, make sure there's evidence to prove they did that and not just accusations.

Oh yea, do a little research and find as much information and facts as possible. ;)

If 16 states have changed their laws on civil forfeiture, are you going to deny that there wasn't abuse? When you incentivize this type of activity, what do you expect. Now if the proceeds went into the STATE coffers, maybe they would not have changed the practice. ;)
190a47aa-d074-4447-a6f3-50249f369134_text.gif
 

WVBaker

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,087
Points
323



This is quite the little game. Yes, unfortunately there are good and bad in all occupations, but let me give you just a bit of advice if I may.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're in need of law enforcement, call a local drug dealer, crackhead, child molester, well you get the idea. I know they'll rush right over to help you.

I understood the first post and your intent was undeniable however, this continuation speaks volumes about one's personality. Therefore DrQ have your fun, my dealings with you and any that support these posts, have come to an end. :wave:
 

DrQ

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
3,926
Points
648
Location
DFW
Resorts Owned
HICV, Westgate (second cousin, twice removed)
...
I understood the first post and your intent was undeniable however, this continuation speaks volumes about one's personality.
My personality is one of a libertarian view where if the lowest of our society aren't provided due process, none of us are.
 

bbodb1

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
4,305
Reaction score
3,824
Points
348
Location
High radiation belt of the Northern Hemisphere
Resorts Owned
RCI Weeks: LaCosta Beach Club, RCI Points: Oakmont Resort, Vacation Village at Parkway. Wyndham: CWA and La Belle Maison, and WorldMark.
Throwing all police under the bus is not the path of building consensus.
 

DrQ

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
6,040
Reaction score
3,926
Points
648
Location
DFW
Resorts Owned
HICV, Westgate (second cousin, twice removed)
Throwing all police under the bus is not the path of building consensus.
If you go back to the original post, the entity under said bus is the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

They stated that all departments need to state as a policy that it is not supported to steal otherwise it is carte blanche.
 

Brett

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,454
Reaction score
5,021
Points
698
Location
Coastal Virginia

If 16 states have changed their laws on civil forfeiture, are you going to deny that there wasn't abuse? When you incentivize this type of activity, what do you expect. Now if the proceeds went into the STATE coffers, maybe they would not have changed the practice. ;)

fortunately many states have passed legislation to avoid abuses in "policing for profit'
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,141
Reaction score
597
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
As often happens many of the views I’m seeing here are unconnected to this case.

The people who let’s say “lost” their cash and/or jewelry have evidence that the officers took it and are trying to get a judgment to make the officers pay them back. There’s a rule of law that says if officers have a search warrant it gives them qualified immunity if the property taken under warrant is lost.

Rightly or wrongly, this appeals court is upholding the qualified immunity for the officers even though it is apparent they didn’t turn in everything they took.

The court could have said there is no qualified immunity for officers who use a warrant as a pretext to steal. But the court didn’t go that way.

The current US Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule against officers who act unconstitutionally, the argument being that officers are not expert constitutionalists and they should be allowed to make quick decisions when they’re on the job without worrying that someone might sue them.

Should that be the rule when the quick decision is to pocket some of the money you were supposed to turn over?

My guess is the US Supreme Court will decline to review the case. It takes 4 votes out of 9 justices to bring it into the court to be heard.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top