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

[DrQ]

This is outrageous:

Cops Accused of Stealing Over $225,000 Can't Be Sued, Thanks to Qualified Immunity

A court ruled that officers did not have enough information to know whether or not stealing violates the Constitution.

reason.com

"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]

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.

 

[Brett]

well, I clicked

wow - I'm assuming it's true

 

[SueDonJ]

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]

This is outrageous:

Cops Accused of Stealing Over $225,000 Can't Be Sued, Thanks to Qualified Immunity

A court ruled that officers did not have enough information to know whether or not stealing violates the Constitution.

reason.com

"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.”

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case That Shields Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000

“Thanks to qualified immunity, police can literally come into your home and steal from you, and the courts will shield them from liability.”

www.forbes.com

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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1021/141395/20200410160101121_Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari.pdf

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]

Excuse me Brett and SueDonJ, does the above help?

 

[turkel]

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.

 

[Conan]

You can read the judges' opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf
There's a possibility the US Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the decision, but I'm guessing they won't.

 

[WVBaker]

You can read the judges' opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf
There's a possibility the US Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the decision, but I'm guessing they won't.

Nor should they.

 

[DrQ]

Punishment Without Crime

Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes.

www.newyorker.com

Indiana man has been fighting to get luxury SUV back after 2013 drug conviction

Tyson Timbs admits he’s made some wrong turns in life. But nothing that should’ve cost him his car.

www.wthr.com

Police took $10,000 from pregnant woman and husband. They only gave it back when the local paper chased them

'I felt like I was in a movie. This is not the kind of law we should be living with in our country'

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DrQ]

...

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.

New Jersey Is Now The 16th State To Require Convictions For Civil Forfeiture

New Jersey became the latest state to protect individuals from civil forfeiture, which lets police confiscate property without ever having to charge someone with a crime.

www.forbes.com

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.

 

[WVBaker]

Punishment Without Crime

Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes.

www.newyorker.com

Indiana man has been fighting to get luxury SUV back after 2013 drug conviction

Tyson Timbs admits he’s made some wrong turns in life. But nothing that should’ve cost him his car.

www.wthr.com

Police took $10,000 from pregnant woman and husband. They only gave it back when the local paper chased them

'I felt like I was in a movie. This is not the kind of law we should be living with in our country'

www.independent.co.uk

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.

 

[DrQ]

...
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]

Throwing all police under the bus is not the path of building consensus.

 

[turkel]

Well no maybe about it.

What @WVBaker said ^

 

[DrQ]

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]

New Jersey Is Now The 16th State To Require Convictions For Civil Forfeiture

New Jersey became the latest state to protect individuals from civil forfeiture, which lets police confiscate property without ever having to charge someone with a crime.

www.forbes.com

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]

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.

 

[Makai Guy]

Now that the horses, both of them, are out of the barn, I'm closing the door.