Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

dodge guy wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:
Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now.

Where was the criminal activity?

You stated "it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity" the only ones that committed this crime were the police! because they stole the money and were in possession of the money through criminal activity! you can twist the law all you want, but in this case the police were wrong and the courts agreed!

Actually one Federal Judge agreed. The case is under appeal so we'll see what the appellate court says. And I'm trying to tell you facts, not twist anything. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate the money is proceeds from criminal activity. It is a civil case so the standard is not as high as a criminal case. The subject who possessed the money has the absolute right to prove that the money was received and possessed in a lawful manner, but he has refused to do so. What the judge ruled on was the manner that the officers made the stop and seized the money was not proper, not that seizing the money itself was not proper. In fact, if you read the case, if at the first traffic stop there had been a dog available and they were able to search the motorhome there, then in all likelihood the Judge would not have ruled against the prosecutor in this case. The Judge didn't like the two traffic stops and the length of detention for traffic offenses that eventually led to the seizure.

dodge guy wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:
Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now.

Where was the criminal activity?

You stated "it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity" the only ones that committed this crime were the police! because they stole the money and were in possession of the money through criminal activity! you can twist the law all you want, but in this case the police were wrong and the courts agreed!

Exactly and the guy had no previous criminal record. He very well might have been a drug dealer but there was not enough evidence to prove it. The first officer, Monroe, was heard saying to himself on the video that "he's carrying money". When he radioed ahead he said that he was sure that the motor home was carrying a large amount of cash.
As we all know, if you have a stack of $100 bills, there is a better than average chance that a drug dog will hit on it from cocaine residue, even if you are a law abiding citizen.
Basically if you read the court documents you will see from the first stop of the motor home it was all about getting the cash.
Once the dog hit on the rear compartment of the coach, the owner offered to open the compartment and the officer refused. The officers wanted in the coach and were willing to do whatever they could to get in. This is what the judge saw when he reviewed the evidence and why he ruled the way he did.

msmith1199 wrote:
Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now.

Where was the criminal activity?

You stated "it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity" the only ones that committed this crime were the police! because they stole the money and were in possession of the money through criminal activity! you can twist the law all you want, but in this case the police were wrong and the courts agreed!

Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now.

Ok. Now after reading what went on it seems to me a cop or 2 were looking for their big day on the side of the highway. They got it and now look like fools! This is clearly a guy on the road taking his cash with him which is not a crime! The only crime committed was by the police and government! Crimes against a citizen of the U.S. No less!

I would like the to think the 2 officers are suspended! But I doubt it, probably out there still stealing for the government from law abiding citizens!

gatijinet, I get you don't like asset seizure. But you can't keep changing your argument. Or I guess you can, but I'm done with you. Anybody who wants to read through all this can see my position.

The sad thing is, they are just setting their self up with a big target on their back, and it will be the good along with the bad. already started with the blacks.

27 pages sure gives a lot for interpretation.
The way I read it, the judge got pissed by the fact that Officers as well DA lied (or not disclosure) that the 2nd stop was the result of the call after 1st stop.
Sergeant who never do traffic stops "happen" to seat on the freeway and pulls over a motorhome becouse window curtains are pulled down?
I think officers and DA took somebody for idiot and even they might have a case with some strange activity, they lost simply becouse they tough they are above the law.

Right from the beginning I thought the seizure of the man's funds was wrong and so does Judge Hicks. How the officer's did it was faulted by the judge.
The fact that others have sued the state because of other stops along I80 indicates that the Nevada police have a problem with following the law. I never said anything about the curtain blocking his view. I mentioned ONLY the curtain over the back window. Please read a little slower.

Based on the officer's testimony how is one to feel comfortable traveling I80, in a motor home, during the Winter, with any amount of cash in your coach? What is to protect any of us from the next seizure, especially if we do not consent to an inspection of our coach, as recommended by most LEO's on this forum?
Face it, if we are stopped at the side of the road, we have very little rights and we are left to the officer's discretion as to what he wants to do unless we act like submissive children. Any resistance to their requests, whether we have that legal right or not, seems to be just an excuse for them to escalate the encounter.

You are right about this being this judge's opinion but as the document shows, each one of his "opinions" were supported by previous court rulings as detailed after eah statement.

Be leery all you want, you are still wrong. You are mostly wrong about what you think I have said, but you are also wrong on the facts. So you think that if the officer stopped the guy for having the curtain blocking his view and for driving on the fog line, and the judge determined that the fog line violation "may" not have happened, that somehow makes it legal to drive with the curtain blocking your view? I guess I don't understand that logic.

Also if you read the 27 pages you see the judge did not fault either of the officers for their probable cause for the traffic stops. He faulted them for detaining the guy too long based only on traffic violations and an officers hunch. Is the judge right? Well you think so, even though you are confused about what the judge actually ruled. I also think the judge is probably going to be found to be right based on the Supreme Court ruling that came down while this case was being litigated. All I have ever said is the US Attorney is appealing the case and we'll see what the appellate court says. And I'm somehow evil for wanting to see what the final outcome is? You have an outcome that you think you support so you want it to stop here but the system allows for either side to appeal. If the judge in this case had sided with the Government's case would you want it to stop, or would you support the guy appealing?