Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Drizzt, May 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,648
    Location:
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    Woman stopped for seat belt; trooper finds $1.4 million cash

    By The Associated Press

    (5/22/03 - SAN ANTONIO) — A state trooper who pulled over a car because the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt found three black duffel bags stuffed with $1.4 million cash.

    Trooper Joe Hogue said the driver, a 59-year-old woman, as well as a 57-year-old female passenger, appeared nervous during the stop Wednesday.

    Hogue said his suspicions were raised when the women, both from Laredo, gave conflicting stories on how many days they had been in San Antonio.

    The women agreed to let Hogue search the vehicle, and Hogue then found the bags of money. No drugs or other illegal items were found.

    Hogue said the driver told him she found the bags along the highway. But later, she told authorities she found the bags outside a convenience store.

    "She could not have lifted those bags," Hogue said.

    No charges have been filed against the women, but the Texas Department of Public Safety is investigating.

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/52203_state_cash.html
     
  2. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    is it too late for the rich old lady to become my sugar mama?
     
  3. cordex

    cordex Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,714
    Location:
    Indiana
    *shifty eyes*

    "Yes ... I ... uh ... found this 1.4 million in cash. See it was ... uh ... by the ... er ... you know."

    Wonder how a "This is my darshgarned retirement fund and I don't trust a bank with it!" line might have played.
     
  4. Pendragon

    Pendragon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Simply let the women go, tail them and find out who tries to kill them for losing the money.

    Although that implies there is something wrong with carrying that much cash, but nobody will listen to that argument.
     
  5. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    Why must you prove that the money is yours?

    Scam? Sure sounds like an unlegislated tax to me.
     
  6. Brian Maffei

    Brian Maffei Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    128
  7. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    The driver was released, but the money? (I'm betting impounded, pending investigation). Curious that both stories omitted that key bit... Similar thing happened in NC, the driver never came back to claim the cash...

    What's the current "finder's fee" for suspicious assets confiscated by local PD's?
     
  8. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    If they can't find any other excuse to confiscate that much cash, they will make something up like "That much money could only belong to (insert "a drug dealer, a money launderer, a thief"). Seizure and forfeiture is a Godsend to the authorities -- like manna from Heaven.

    Actually, according to their story, they should be charged with unlawful conversion of found property to personal use; also know as theft of found property. If they truly found it, they should have turned it in and placed a claim against it if unclaimed. Even if it is claimed, there are provisions in the law of most states that a person who finds property and turns it in is entitled to a just reward. A just reward is construed by most jurisdictions as 10%.
    $140,000 is quite a chunk of change for 20 minutes work.

    When I lived in Longmont, CO we found a stolen sculpture (full size bronze soaring bald eagle) ditched behind a car wash. We took it to the local constabulary and turned it in and the owners sent us an open ended gift certificate for two, with no bar restriction, to the most expensive restaurant in town .

    To Hell with that "Honesty is its own reward" crap. There's nothing like a free dinner.
     
  9. jimpeel

    jimpeel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Kimball, NE
    hammer4nc

    One-hundred percent.
     
  10. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    So, uh, carrying money is against the law? :confused:
     
  11. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    Being suspicious is against the law. Living a life uncontrolled and unobserved by the man is against the law.

    Being free is rapidly becoming against the law.

    - Gabe
     
  12. wingman

    wingman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,185
    Location:
    texas
    Any large of amount of cash on your person( because of the credit card
    world we live in) makes you a
    suspect in the eyes of the law, if
    you carry large amounts of cash be
    prepared to prove it's yours,
    especially in south Texas.:rolleyes:
     
  13. matis

    matis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    I used to live in the USA; now I find myself in th
    Pendragon,

    I will listen to that argument -- in fact I'll second that argument.


    What business is it of the law how much cash a person is carrying?

    Money laundering is another non-crime. What it really is is trying to keep one's financial affairs private.

    Here's a good plan for living off other's assets: First declare various activities to be illegal and propagandize the sheeple to get all excited about them.

    Then use this as a pre-text to infringe civil rights: break down doors, kill and imprison people. tap their phones, bank accounts, emails -- set up conditions for drive-by shooting, turf-battles (you can't exactly take such disputes to court, can you?)

    And then declare the profits from these activities (free-market activities, actually) -- that are obviously desired by segments of the population -- or there would be no profits -- declare these profits, to be "...ill-gotten gains."

    Then use civl asset forfeiture to seize these assets whenever possible. Duck soup, eh? The money or the property is guilty, not the person, so there is very little legal defence and what there is is very expensive.


    Good racket, eh?

    Who really is getting ill-gotten gains?

    Gives new meaning to the phrase: "highway robbery", doesn't it?


    Don't get me going...........please!



    Matis
     
  14. Idaho

    Idaho Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Between the desert and the mountains
    WHY do people CONSENT to searches?! :scrutiny:

    I have never understood this. Even if I wasn't guilty of anything at all, I wouldn't consent. Yet every day I read about bozos, often criminal bozos, that consent to a search when they have cash/guns/drugs/illegal aliens/imaginary friends/whatever in the car that they would just as soon law enforcement didn't find out about.
     
  15. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    Most people give consent because they figure if they don't the officer will screw them over big time on the traffic citation.

    The crooks are just stupid.
     
  16. jungleman

    jungleman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    S.E. Michigan
    I firmly believe that if you are going to do something dishonest that you wear your seatbelt and obey the traffic laws.
    In Michigan anyway i believe that it is illegal to carry more than
    $10,000 on your person.
     
  17. TheeBadOne

    TheeBadOne Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,217
    Location:
    Nemo sine vitio est
    This is a very common tactic used by drug trafficers. Hire some unsuspecting looking folks to run your money/drugs for you. For the folks it's low risk, high pay.
     
  18. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    I don't doubt this is so, but isn't the burden of proof on the LE and prosecution?
     
  19. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    CZ-75,

    Nope, not in asset forfeiture cases.

    You see, you aren't being charged with a crime; your money/property is.

    Money/property is not innocent until proven guilty; it is automatically guilty if the government says it is. If you want it back, you have to sue the government to get it. If you want to sue the government to get it, you have to put up a percentage of the value of the seized property as a bond. Hard to do when, say, they've already seized all your liquid assets, neh?
     
  20. CZ-75

    CZ-75 member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    BFE
    Actually, I knew that. I just wanted an LEO to explain to me why it is just and we should all be proud to be Americans and live in a great country where we have laws like this to keep "evildoers" from harming us. ;)

    Didn't they use 18th C. admiralty laws as a precedent to enable them to use LE as "privateers" to plunder from the citizenry and split the "loot"?
     
  21. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Yup, that's where the legal precedent for asset forfeiture comes from (which in turn draws its inspiration from medieval law, when objects could be charged with crimes.) :uhoh:

    Maybe we'll go back to burning heretics and dunking witches soon, too; seems like anything can be rationalized in the name of the War On (Some) Drugs... :scrutiny:
     
  22. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    Waco, TX
     
  23. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    I believe this falls under the RICO statutes, passed by paranoid congresscum, which was designed to take the drug kings loot. Of course, like any paranoid law, unconstitutional on its face, you have to prove the money is yours or Uncle Sugar keeps it. One of those instances where your Constitutional protections mean nothing-you'll have to hire a lawyer to prove the money belongs to you so even if it is yours by rights, the lawyer is going to have his hands in it for a percentage.
    If the news story is true, dems womens sound like they are up to no good, but RICO is not necessarily doing what its supposed to do and there are jurisdictions in this country using laws like this way outside the intent of the laws original meaning.
    Thats why you don't give the government power in anything over and above what the Constitution originally spells out.
    You can be safe or free, but not both....
     
  24. matis

    matis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    I used to live in the USA; now I find myself in th
    Delmar....

    Delmar said:
    _________________________________________________
    You can be safe or free, but not both....
    _________________________________________________

    Yes, you can.

    Absolute safety or freedom do not exist.

    But you can be safe and free. Just rely on yourself and not government to guard them.


    Something about hiring the fox to guard the chickens...?



    Matis
     
  25. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Matis,
    Thats exactly what I'm talking about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page