Sickening abuse of office

Status
Not open for further replies.

bobs1066

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
398
Location
Houston, TX
Mo. Man Fights for Return of Rare $1,000 Bill That Was Seized During a Traffic Stop

The Associated Press

PINE LAWN, Mo. Jan. 15 — The mayor of this St. Louis suburb fancied a rare $1,000 bill that was seized in a traffic stop, so the town wrote the driver a check and the politician kept the cash.
Not a fair trade, according to the driver, a retired trucker who said he carried the bill in his pocket for two decades.

"If you take a personal item from someone, you should give it back," Curtis Smith Sr., 71, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

County police and prosecutors found that Pine Lawn officials broke no laws. But Don Schneider, a spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, said "it's a bad idea for a city official or politician to have access to evidence."

"It creates the appearance of impropriety. We don't advocate doing business that way," Schneider said.

Calls to City Hall on Thursday seeking comment from Mayor Adrian Wright were not answered.

Experts said collectors will pay $1,300 to $3,500 for the bill showing President Grover Cleveland, depending on its condition. The U.S. government printed its last $1,000 bill in 1934 and took the denomination out of circulation in 1969 after technology replaced paper notes for transfers of large sums.

Smith said he got his $1,000 bill through a banking friend about 20 years ago, when that sum could buy what today would cost $1,771, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Smith's note was seized last April when he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Smith, who lives in nearby Jennings, said he was sleeping off a few drinks in his truck on a lot he owns.

According to an official report, Smith was taken to the police station, where the mayor watched as police counted Smith's money, including the $1,000 bill, several $100 bills and a few $2 bills.

Wright said he wanted the bill, which portrays President Grover Cleveland, "as a novelty item, as few people have ever had the opportunity to see a bill in that denomination." The mayor fetched 10 $100 bills, and police switched the money and deposited it in an account for seized drug assets, the report said.

In September, county prosecutors refused to charge Smith with selling drugs and ordered the money returned. The city issued Smith a check for $3,231 to cover the $1,000 bill and his other cash.

Smith said he repeatedly called and visited police to ask for his rare bill, but officials refused to return it.

City Attorney Mark Zoole said the bill never left City Hall and would be returned to Smith, should he ask for it, once it was no longer considered evidence in a criminal case.

Zoole noted, "He, of course, would have to pay for it."
 
I swear I need to quite reading this forum... Anybody got one of those blue pills laying around so I could just go back to sleep?

Words just escape me. :barf:
 
This is so wrong.

The Mayor and all involved should be sacked and then jailed for this "swindle"and absue of office. Obviously the Mayor hangs out at the PD and if he sees something come out of someone's pocket he wants, he just "trades" for if using his own personal Blue Book of Values. What is different about this and a plain old fashion robbery.

Is asset forfiture a way to let locals pick through the "assests" and take what they want without anyone knowing? So crooked.

S-
 
I really should only poke my head in here when I feel an urgent need to feel depressed.:p

I am once again suffering that emotion called ''disgust'' .... along with other words like ..... amazement .. despair .....
 
why does stuff like this ..not surprise me.corruption..fraud..embezzelment...from the top down.looks like he has quite a racket going on..nice of his wife to cook the books and cover his back.ive seen this stuff before..many many times.it never ends.cash is king:rolleyes:they deposited it into the "seized drug assets accounts"..i guess they had to hide it somewhere
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how it is possible not to break the law if you seize someone's property as evidence and then do not return it when he is cleared and the case closed.

At the very least, wouldn't they at LEAST have to give him fair market value?

I wonder what would happen if I, not being the mayor, went around forcing people to trade dollar bills for a few pennies (that's surely all the paper is worth, even if it is that cool linen paper.)


On the other hand, that reckless drunk could have KILLED SOMEONE while he was recklessly sleeping on his private property . It had to be done for the children.
 
I think the truck driver should sue the police department for false arrest (what law did he break by sleeping in his truck on his property after he had a few beers?) and the thief personally for theft and whatever else his lawer can think of (there's gotta be some statute about abuse of power or something like that).
 
The usual suspects. Corrupt government, over-active police.

What were the POLICE doing on HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY in the first place? Did HE request them? I do not think so. Can anyone show where the Police have the right to enter your property without request to arrest you for a non-crime that was not reported?

TO add insult to injury, he got rolled by the Mayor. What a lovely place. :barf:
 
TWO WORDS.......

POLICE STATE


Finally enough reading on this site has infuriated me to the point of actually registering.....and making a post. The man in question should be commended for not putting a bullet in the head of the barney fife that made that illegal stop on HIS property. Just think for one second if Thomas Jefferson or the like came back from the dead and lived in this day and age.........what do you think the outcome would be??

How much more responsible can you possibly be? Pulling over (on your own property!) to "sleep off a few drinks". I cannot understand the mentality of someone that goes and bothers another that is doing...... NOTHING!

sorry for the rant!

~L
 
"Sickening abuse of office"

I thought this thread was about Richmond City Council.

Not only is another member being investigated and likely on her way to jail like the others, but she voted Monday on whether to hire an outside lawyer to deal with the investigation. Now my Council rep has asked to have her vote investigated.

And the music goes 'round and 'round...


Hang the mayor. The sleazeball dipstick.

John
 
Many thoughts

Smith's note was seized last April when he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Smith, who lives in nearby Jennings, said he was sleeping off a few drinks in his truck on a lot he owns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Standing Wolf- "Well, yeah, but we're not a police state."

nico- I think the truck driver should sue the police department for false arrest (what law did he break by sleeping in his truck on his property after he had a few beers?)

While the article does not contain more than a shadow of any details of the arrest, I assume the man was intoxicated behind the wheel of a motor vehicle he had control over (keys in ignition, etc). He drove there, and could drive away at any moment. That's why the law is in place, to prevent that. He might have even passed out at the wheel, foot on brake, we don't know. Just because he was in a lot he owned doesn't make it "not criminal". Read your states DUI laws. Most are similar. It doesn't matter where you are, frozen lake, Field, etc. It's illegal to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Now, if you're drunk and are sitting in a car that has no engine and is up on blocks, you're good to go. No way for it to be underway in a short amount of time. But if you're passed out in your car and as soon as you wake up you can drive again, that's what the law is there for. To stop it, and also let you know that's not a defense for driving drunk. ("I wasn't driving, I was just sitting there.....passed out").

The article didn't cover the drug poss charges or say what the drug was. Many states have clear cut forfeiture laws on that. If he was in poss of drugs he loses his money, I have no problem with that.

If he wasn't in possession of drugs he gets his money back (the $1,000 bill in my opinion goes back to him, not just any $1,000).

2 cnets
 
Read your states DUI laws. Most are similar. It doesn't matter where you are, frozen lake, Field, etc. It's illegal to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
Really? I'm going to have to check my state's laws because this sounds absolutely absurd. You're telling me if I'm sitting in the middle of 600 acres - that I own - on a tractor (or truck, or car, or whatever) - that I own - with a few bottles of beer in me, a cop that spots me with a telescope from a distant ridge can come screeching across the field and arrest me for DUI?
(Not going to happen because I don't own 600 acres, a tractor, or drink alcohol, but I'm curious. Oh yeah, and "distant ridges" are in short supply 'round here.)
If he wasn't in possession of drugs he gets his money back (the $1,000 bill in my opinion goes back to him, not just any $1,000).
If he were in possession of an illicit drug and thus fell under the asset forfeiture laws, why would the city give him "a check for $3,231 to cover the $1,000 bill and his other cash."?
 
You're telling me if I'm sitting in the middle of 600 acres - that I own - on a tractor (or truck, or car, or whatever) - that I own - with a few bottles of beer in me, a cop that spots me with a telescope from a distant ridge can come screeching across the field and arrest me for DUI?
No. What I am telling you is that if you are so irrisponsible a person as to take along a passenger and a case of beer and decided to get smashed and roll your vehicle from your dumb drunken driving conduct and hurt/kill your passenger you will be charged out for your wreckless behavior.
The same if you decide to drive around the woods/sandpit drunk out of your mind and drive straight through a camping area, and a dozen tents full of people. You will be charged out.
The same if our drunk driving all over a frozen lake and hit and damage ice fishing houses, or other cars, or snowmobiles, or the people contained in any of them.

All the best

TBO
 
"What I am telling you is that if you are so irrisponsible a person as to take along a passenger and a case of beer and decided to get smashed and roll your vehicle from your dumb drunken driving conduct and hurt/kill your passenger you will be charged out for your wreckless behavior.
The same if you decide to drive around the woods/sandpit drunk out of your mind and drive straight through a camping area, and a dozen tents full of people. You will be charged out."

However, none of those things happened. He was asleep in a truck on his own property. He wasn't arrested for manslaughter, reckless endangerment or any of the other things he could be arrested for in your scenarios. He wasn't even arrested for drunk driving, but suspicion of drunk driving. I could down a bottle of tequila at home and go sleep in my car in the driveway and be doing the same thing this guy was doing. Given all that the article tells me anyway.

Bottom line is he should get his bill back pronto with an apology from the idiot mayor. Then the mayor should be investigated.

Rick
 
Those offenses make sense.
What I am telling you is that if you are so irrisponsible a person as to take along a passenger and a case of beer and decided to get smashed and roll your vehicle from your dumb drunken driving conduct and hurt/kill your passenger you will be charged out for your wreckless behavior.
Injury/death to innocent due to reckless behavior. Prosecution is warranted.
The same if you decide to drive around the woods/sandpit drunk out of your mind and drive straight through a camping area, and a dozen tents full of people. You will be charged out.
Injury/death/property destruction to innocent due to reckless behavior. Prosecution is warranted.
The same if our drunk driving all over a frozen lake and hit and damage ice fishing houses, or other cars, or snowmobiles, or the people contained in any of them.
Injury/death/property destruction to innocent due to reckless behavior. Prosecution is warranted.

But what you said was not "If you hurt someone else or destroy someone else's property, you will be prosecuted." What you said was
It doesn't matter where you are, frozen lake, Field, etc. It's illegal to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
In other words, in the case of the officer spying me drinking it up in my jeep or on my tractor in the middle of my property without harming anyone, he or she would be entirely within his duty as a Law Enforcement Officer to enforce the law and arrest me for operating or being in physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Right?
For me, the question is not "Could this be used by good police officers, prosecutors and judges to do good things?" It could. But then, so could allowing summary executions (in a few cases). My concern is "How could such a law be abused?" I see this law as having an unnecessary capacity for being abused.
 
"It creates the appearance of impropriety."

NoSiR! It creates a criminal act. Property confiscated as evidence is to be returned. Period.

Far as "in control of a vehicle," from what I understand (talking to some local legal beagles) is that if your keys are in the ignition = you are "in control" - even with the engine off & listening to the radio.
 
Far as "in control of a vehicle," from what I understand (talking to some local legal beagles) is that if your keys are in the ignition = you are "in control" - even with the engine off & listening to the radio.

Another case of a law, or interpretation of a law, that makes a criminal of someone for something they "might" do, ie drive drunk. Even if there is no proof that the individual HAS driven drunk, or is INTENDING to drive drunk, the simple POTENTIAL to drive drunk is considered a crime?

"You there, carrying around that concealed handgun. You are under arrest because you have the POTENTIAL to commit a crime, and shoot up that school over there down the block. Put your hands up and turn around!"

This kind of reasoning is leading us to be even more of a police state than we already are.

If someone operates a motor vehicle drunk -- slam him in the pokey.

If he is sleeping in his own car, on his own property -- LEAVE HIM ALONE!
:fire:
 
Another case of a law, or interpretation of a law, that makes a criminal of someone for something they "might" do, ie drive drunk. Even if there is no proof that the individual HAS driven drunk, or is INTENDING to drive drunk, the simple POTENTIAL to drive drunk is considered a crime?
From what I'm getting from some of these posts is you have no problem with someone in the back 40 getting charged with DUI if they crash and hurt someone, but if they don't crash and hurt someone let them be alone. Well, that really doesn't make much sense now does it? Kind of like saying , "Let them drive on the road drunk and only do something if they crash/cause a wreck". There is such a thing as "Prevention", which is what DUI enforcement is all about. You have no problem with calling someone shooting a firearm into the air an Idiot and saying he should not do that (even if he doesn't hit something/someone). But buy using the logic of some posters he should be able to fire blindly in the air on his own property and there should only be something done if the bullets land on someone/something. Don't worry about prevention....

2 cents
:scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top