TexasCHLforum.com

A constable serving a public document knocked on the door of the house to see the men running out the back. He opened the door and noticed why they were running - guns, drugs, and money.

There was $1.5 million in cash in that house. It's amazing the individuals didn't stick around to protect that money with the many assault rifles.

Being the only one in the know at the time, that constable was alone with $1.5 million in cash. I shudder to think what others might have done in a similar situation. I don't know whether a thought even crossed the constable's mind, but in the end he definitely showed his worth.

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_sto ... 90841.html

You are assuming that there wasn't $1.8 million there when they left. Only the BG know the truth.

Just food for thought.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:You are assuming that there wasn't $1.8 million there when they left. Only the BG know the truth.

Just food for thought.

I worked a total of 9 years in Narcotics for the State. It has been my experience that the drug dealer knows every penney, every kilo, every pot plant, etc. . . That does not mean they will not lie to start an investigation against LE, but they know or at least the "professionals dealers" know.

I'm sure he did the right thing and that probably holds true 99% of the time. But it's that 1% you worry about. That same 1% is the reason we carry.

Let's see.... My report "Man, those guys had a LOT of drugs. I am suprised they only had $3.95 and an old SKS with all of those drugs around!" (just kidding!)

I think most LEO's and indivduals will do the right thing. However, I am sure it would be REALLY tempting.

What report, I would never have been there :

I'd be too busy reading up on money laundering to make a report

Knock knock... no one home. Oh well.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:I'm sure he did the right thing and that probably holds true 99% of the time. But it's that 1% you worry about. That same 1% is the reason we carry.

That's not why I carry.

Tell you the truth why couldn't the LEO that took that drug money and weapons off the street get a small percentage of the take...then take that confiscated money and put it into the police dept funds (completely autonomous of federal or local funding)

Let that BAD money do some good for a change, what do they do with all that money anyway...wrap it in plastic and stick it in an evidence locker?

Last time I looked LEO have a lousy job dealing with the underbelly of society, rarely thanked, constantly under attack from the people that they are putting their lives on the line to protect, shot at, spit on, and make less than many people.

I say let the LEO keep 5-10% of the take...it might make them even more eager to bust that crack house or crush that drug lord...maybe just maybe if they had a BETTER reason they would WIN the war on drugs.

KRM45 wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:I'm sure he did the right thing and that probably holds true 99% of the time. But it's that 1% you worry about. That same 1% is the reason we carry.

That's not why I carry.

I guess maybe I didn't word that properly. I didn't mean to imply that carrying has anything to due with law enforcement or a bad seed in law enforcement (which I am sure are very rare). I meant that I carry in case the unlikely event requiring me to have to use my weapon arises.

Let me further state that I have a tremendous amount of respect for iall levels of law enforcement and I meant no disrespect to them. I was just making a little joke...

ScubaSigGuy wrote:

KRM45 wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:I'm sure he did the right thing and that probably holds true 99% of the time. But it's that 1% you worry about. That same 1% is the reason we carry.

That's not why I carry.

I guess maybe I didn't word that properly. I didn't mean to imply that carrying has anything to due with law enforcement or a bad seed in law enforcement (which I am sure are very rare). I meant that I carry in case the unlikely event requiring me to have to use my weapon arises.

Let me further state that I have a tremendous amount of respect for iall levels of law enforcement and I meant no disrespect to them. I was just making a little joke...

I understood your point. And frankly you're right. That 1% is out ther, and we need to watch for them. There is just a whole lot more of the other kind of BG out there

Molon_labe wrote:Tell you the truth why couldn't the LEO that took that drug money and weapons off the street get a small percentage of the take...then take that confiscated money and put it into the police dept funds (completely autonomous of federal or local funding)

We do this now for many crimes, though just to the agency level and not the individual officer. It is called asset forfeiture and is a civil process by which evidence of certain crimes, and the proceeds of them, are seized and turned over to the agency that did the seizing. As a general rule, the agency splits the take with the lawyer's office that does the court hearing for the seizure (District Attorney, County Attorney, or US Attorney). There are then laws on how the money can be spent, such as on equipment for the department but not on new personnel.

I have a few major problems with this, not the least of which is the standards of evidence. The forfeiture is a civil thing, and the suit is named against the property itself and not the owner. This means that sometimes the owner does not even know that his property is being seized until too late. It also means that I can seize the property without being able to prove the crime (think OJ and Goldmans).

It also leads to less spending by the city on the department, which hides the real cost of the department. If I know you are averaging $100,000 per year in seizures, i can cut the budget for new cars by that amount. Then, if you have a year with less money, the police management looks incompetent for going over budget and the cops look bad for the city budget being wrong.

It also leads to corruption on how the money is spent. This is what is happening in Austin right now, as they audit the seizure funds and how it was spent. If a Chief has a fund of money that does not go through the budget process, and does not have to be accounted for in the normal budget process, he will spend some of it improperly to get something he wants.

And last, but most important, is that it leads to corruption in the law enforcement field. The departments will find cooperative officers and put them on special details to increase the seizures. They will go out and make arrests they know won't stand up in court, just to get enough to seize the car/property.

Think how easy it would be to seize a car from a CHL for a case where there was a shooting that the D.A. decided to prosecute. He could lose the shooting case, but still win the civil seizure while you are worried about your freedom. I have even seen the seizure used as part of a plea bargain, where a nice car was forfeited to get some charges dropped.

srothstein wrote:

Molon_labe wrote:Tell you the truth why couldn't the LEO that took that drug money and weapons off the street get a small percentage of the take...then take that confiscated money and put it into the police dept funds (completely autonomous of federal or local funding)

We do this now for many crimes, though just to the agency level and not the individual officer. It is called asset forfeiture and is a civil process by which evidence of certain crimes, and the proceeds of them, are seized and turned over to the agency that did the seizing. As a general rule, the agency splits the take with the lawyer's office that does the court hearing for the seizure (District Attorney, County Attorney, or US Attorney). There are then laws on how the money can be spent, such as on equipment for the department but not on new personnel.

I have a few major problems with this, not the least of which is the standards of evidence. The forfeiture is a civil thing, and the suit is named against the property itself and not the owner. This means that sometimes the owner does not even know that his property is being seized until too late. It also means that I can seize the property without being able to prove the crime (think OJ and Goldmans).

It also leads to less spending by the city on the department, which hides the real cost of the department. If I know you are averaging $100,000 per year in seizures, i can cut the budget for new cars by that amount. Then, if you have a year with less money, the police management looks incompetent for going over budget and the cops look bad for the city budget being wrong.

It also leads to corruption on how the money is spent. This is what is happening in Austin right now, as they audit the seizure funds and how it was spent. If a Chief has a fund of money that does not go through the budget process, and does not have to be accounted for in the normal budget process, he will spend some of it improperly to get something he wants.

And last, but most important, is that it leads to corruption in the law enforcement field. The departments will find cooperative officers and put them on special details to increase the seizures. They will go out and make arrests they know won't stand up in court, just to get enough to seize the car/property.

Think how easy it would be to seize a car from a CHL for a case where there was a shooting that the D.A. decided to prosecute. He could lose the shooting case, but still win the civil seizure while you are worried about your freedom. I have even seen the seizure used as part of a plea bargain, where a nice car was forfeited to get some charges dropped.

Why do they make it so complicated...good grief..I guess everyone has their hand out for a piece of the pie..jeez!

srothstein wrote:
Think how easy it would be to seize a car from a CHL for a case where there was a shooting that the D.A. decided to prosecute. He could lose the shooting case, but still win the civil seizure while you are worried about your freedom. I have even seen the seizure used as part of a plea bargain, where a nice car was forfeited to get some charges dropped.

I hear thats almost how they do it in Florida now with street bikes. It was all awesome back when they were sticking it to drug dealers, but now an officer says he saw you evade him (by giving your plate #), they seize your bike but don't charge you with anything. So now the victim either shuts up and loses his property or he tries to get it back and is charged with a felony.