Sheriff’s Officers Commit “Legal” Armed Robbery
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 3/30/09 @ 2:49 pm - Filed Under Local Politics
Our national police state continues to grow and one can easily find evidence right here in Allen County:
Going 62 in a 50-mph zone, a Jeep barreled west on a slippery, snow-covered Airport Expressway on Valentine’s Day and blew past an Allen County sheriff’s squad car.
[...]
In the Jeep’s back seat, police found more than $26,000 in cash wrapped in a stocking cap.Though officers held the two men for a short time in squad cars, they were eventually released without charges, save for the driver receiving a citation for driving with a suspended license.
And the money? The police kept it.
Funny, I always thought that if you forcibly took money that didn’t belong to you then that was called robbery. And just because you use a gun and a badge instead of a gun and a ski mask doesn’t change the fact that it’s armed robbery.
Having that much cash is not a crime, but police have the right to seize it if they suspect it has been used or procured through criminal means.
Right to steal your cash for no reason? Where does that right emanate from exactly? I once read this pesky document called the US Constitution and it sure seemed like this was expressly forbid:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If taking your cash without charging you with a crime isn’t “unreasonable” then I don’t know what is. Just read the rational the sheriff’s officers used to rob these men of their money:
police seized the money because the driver could not give an adequate reason for having that much money. First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs. The passenger said he had no clue about the money.
Those factors allowed police to take the money.
First of all, the reason is none of their damn business - period. Second, how is the driver’s statement not 100% consistent. He said it was to buy a car and that it came from working various jobs. What “factor” would reasonably allow the police to steal their money? Here’s their explanation:
“If it’s way, way over and above what a normal person will carry, and if things don’t add up (on how it was acquired), we take the money,” said Lt. Art Barile, head of the sheriff department’s vice and narcotics unit and the Allen County Drug Task Force
That sounds scientific. What exactly is way, way over and above normal? Who decides that? According to the article even amounts as low as $1000 have been seized. My grandfather used to carry $1000 on him every day of his life - it was normal to him. But according to these authoritarians my grandfather should’ve had to explain why he had it and where it came from.
We now live in a police state where the authoritarians can stop you for no good reason, steal your money and call it perfectly legal. Sounds scary to me. Oh you can file some paperwork to try and get your money back to be sure; I’ll bet that process is easy and straightforward right?
All in the name of the War on Drugs. Welcome to Mark Souder’s America…
Comments
5 Responses to “Sheriff’s Officers Commit “Legal” Armed Robbery”
Leave a Reply
I too was shocked when I read that article last week, but even more shocked when I discovered that what they did is apparently allowed under the law.
However, apparently the guy hasn’t made much of an effort to get the money back.
I wonder if they’d buy my story that those guys were holding MY money for ME…so I could use it as a down payment to move away from the ghetto known as the SOUTH SIDE???
NAH….too “obvious”.
Jeff,
I’m not clear. Are you alleging that the Sheriff’s department violated the law, or upheld a law you believe to be inappropriate?
That article in the paper upset me, too, as it reminds me of my cherry master experience with the FWPD.
It’s been 12 years since a SWAT team burst into my establishment and seized 10 machines and their contents. This resulted in misdemeanor charges of not having current city stickers on the machines, the kind that are required for cigarette machines, pinball machines, etc. While the judge found that this violation would cost us a $3,500.00 fine, the real damage was the failure to return the seized equipment, as required by Indiana Code.
At the same time, and for years afterwards, detectives of the FWPD operated similar equipment in other bars and fraternal organizations.
The $20,000.00 worth of equipment was, according to the Journal Gazette, turned over to the city controller, and then it disappeared. While state law clearly dictated that it be returned, it just vanished. Since there had not been any search warrant (constitutional violation?) the FWPD didn’t feel any need to keep records or secure the seized items.
I have been trying to get the equipment back since the time limit for filing more severe charges expired (Indiana law says that there is a one year window during which felony charges may be filed. None were.) State law in effect at the time clearly stated that anything seized must be returned, if requested. My pleas to Iternal Affairs, mayors, and prosecuting attorneys all fell on deaf ears. The lesson learned is that laws are flexible, and local authorities will do what they want.
I’m even so stupid as to think that this illegal search and seizure turned into a criminal violation when my equipment was not returned, as it was to others, but our prosecutor doesn’t see any problems.
Paul,
I’m stating that the officers under the approval of the Allen County Prosecutor’s office are in violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. I would also classify their behavior as armed robbery.
To be fair, it isn’t just happening here. This sort of thing happens all over this country and people accept it because they want to feel “safe” and believe that the War on Drugs’ ends justify its means.