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

[rgatijnet1]

This just goes to show how things can escalate to a huge problem when you are just driving along minding your own business. Kinda hard to believe this goes on. Motor home stopped for going too slow

[2oldman]

Cloud Dancer wrote:
. Some of them even lose their temper, imagine THAT.

I couldn't be a cop.. if I had to chase someone at 110mph on the freeway I'd beat the livin' **** out of them when they stopped.

[Cloud_Dancer]

Take care of your police departments. I certainly don't want to see anarchy.
BTW they're just people, so there's going to be some "bad apples". Some of them even lose their temper, imagine THAT.

[rgatijnet1]

Executive wrote:
WOW! SEVEN pages and it appears there are two camps...one who thinks all cops are on the take and looking to harass good clean everyday 'citizens'. Then there are the others who actually read the case, or have worked the other side of the field and really know what happens in 'real life'. I believe the guy was a low down crook and deserves to lose his "hard earned" money. That said, I also think the police need additional training on how to avoid this type of fiasco in the future. Often, we get caught up in the heat of the moment and become singularly focused instead of looking at the big picture. I know what I would have done in the same situation as I'm sure mssmith1199 is too..the outcome would have been significantly different but you wouldn't have known about it because it wouldn't have been newsworthy.....Dennis

Well, because of instances like this one, Nevada has a New Bill that makes sure that a situation like this one, and other similar ones, do not happen again. I think everyone, me included, can appreciate a situation where the officer has to make a split second decision. This case was not one of those instances.
This traffic stop evolved over a period of time with officers that did not follow the rules which resulted in nothing but a waste of time for all involved. Prior to this new bill, each individual agency could keep what they seized and use as they saw fit.
As I said, the owner of the RV may well have been a crook, but because of the officer's actions we may never find out. He had no previous criminal record which could mean he was very skillful at avoiding getting caught, he just became a criminal, or he was just an innocent citizen doing exactly what he claimed.
The officer that made the first stop could not see the driver so he was basing his stop on his hunch that an RV, with out of state tags, in January, on I80, was out of place so he came up with a reason to stop him. He used the driving slow in the left lane as his reason. I am sure that all of us have had our RV in the passing lane, with a few vehicles behind us, for a period of time before we could pull back in to the right lane. It happens and I know that I have also driven that same highway during the Winter months, with several thousands in cash in the coach.
In any case, because of incidents like this, Nevada S. B. 138 makes numerous changes to what property is subject to seizure. Basically it appears that there must be a crime involved that relates to the property being seized. In other words, a typical traffic infraction does not constitute grounds to seize property unless that traffic stop leads to a conviction of a crime. IN this case, no conviction, no crime, no seizure. This becomes effective Oct 1, 2015.
If you read the new S.B.138 it appears that prior to this change, local agencies did not have to share their bounty or even notify the state about property seized. Now all seizures of property must be reported to the state and become part of the general fund. It also says that the State must return any seized property within 5 days if the subject is acquitted of any criminal charges.
This was not meant to indicate that I do not have respect for law enforcement officers and the difficult job that they do but I do believe that officers have certain rules that they must follow, just like we all have certain rules that we must follow.
Apparently the Nevada legislature agreed that the seizure rules in place at this time needed to be changed and that was done.
I assume that the former law enforcement officers on this forum still agree that none of us should allow an officer to inspect our coach during a normal traffic stop. :B
Thanks to all that participated for keeping things civil, whether you agreed with the judges decision or not.

[Kayteg1]

Executive wrote:
WOW! SEVEN pages and it appears there are two camps...one who thinks all cops are on the take and looking to harass good clean everyday 'citizens'. Then there are the others who actually read the case, or have worked the other side of the field and really know what happens in 'real life'. I believe the guy was a low down crook and deserves to lose his "hard earned" money.

I would consider myself 3rd camp.
I think the guy was not a honest citizen, but the cop and DA making false report are crooks as well.
Which crime is a bigger caliber?

[2oldman]

I don't hate cops, I hate the drug laws.

[creeper]

I was a police Highway Interdiction Instructor, so I taught these officer how to do what they're doing.

I understand what they were doing, they did it wrong and that's why the judge sided with the plaintiff. Was he a criminal transporting drug money? Most certainly. Did the cops get to the money the wrong way? Most Certainly.

Why did they lose the case (yes I read the judges decision on this case), the officers got caught lying about the facts.

The government got caught not presenting all the facts in the case to the judge.

Their basis for the search warrant contained lies and when they got the search warrant they did not go immediately to the area (outside lower compartment) that was subject of the search warrant.

The K9 hit on that compartment and the driver gave permission to search that compartment, a fact that was omitted. The committed a few of very basic principals of interdiction stops.

Their communications between officers did not match their statements in testimony and search warrant application.

"When he radioed ahead he said that he was sure that the motor home was carrying a large amount of cash."

This statement is false as he could never know that and the money that the driver did produce was not a large amount.

[tbred]

Executive wrote:
WOW! SEVEN pages and it appears there are two camps...one who thinks all cops are on the take and looking to harass good clean everyday 'citizens'. Then there are the others who actually read the case, or have worked the other side of the field and really know what happens in 'real life'. I believe the guy was a low down crook and deserves to lose his "hard earned" money. That said, I also think the police need additional training on how to avoid this type of fiasco in the future. Often, we get caught up in the heat of the moment and become singularly focused instead of looking at the big picture. I know what I would have done in the same situation as I'm sure mssmith1199 is too..the outcome would have been significantly different but you wouldn't have known about it because it wouldn't have been newsworthy.....Dennis

Thanks Dennis. As a leo family,it just seems most folks just don't get it. Sad state of affairs when those out RISKING THEIR LIVES everyday are considered the enemy, and the bad guys are the victims. Sorry folks but my DH has been shot on the job, working to protect ALL of you!

[DSDP_Don]

I've been reading these forums for years, and I've yet to see a couple of you, who are prominent in this post, complain about a bad plumber, lawyer, or auto mechanic that you've had a bad experience with, yet you go out of your way to post on law enforcement. Particularly a case that has nothing to do with you personally.

There is a war on law enforcement, another officer killed today. I can understand the mentality of some young people, minorities and crooks having such a hatred for law enforcement, but it's really a shame to find a few on here, where I thought there would be an older, wiser, and more mature crowd, having the same hatred for law enforcement.

Just so you know, that guy camping three spots down from you, making sure your coach doesn't get broken into, or the one stopping by to see if you need help.....is often an off duty or retired police officer. Guess what, they like camping as much as everyone else and are the few who aren't afraid to step in and stop a crime or go out of their way to help someone out. The reason they do it, is because that's why they got into law enforcement. They have families, their grand kids play with your grandkids, yet you single them out as all bad cops.

It just gets tiresome when you spend your entire career solving the issues of others, that were too weak to solve their issues themselves, while at the same time being criticized for everything you do, especially from someone behind a keyboard who you would think to be more mature and informed!

What police officers must decide or do often happens in a split second. Everyone else gets the luxury of spending years to decide if it was the right decision.

[Executive45]

WOW! SEVEN pages and it appears there are two camps...one who thinks all cops are on the take and looking to harass good clean everyday 'citizens'. Then there are the others who actually read the case, or have worked the other side of the field and really know what happens in 'real life'. I believe the guy was a low down crook and deserves to lose his "hard earned" money. That said, I also think the police need additional training on how to avoid this type of fiasco in the future. Often, we get caught up in the heat of the moment and become singularly focused instead of looking at the big picture. I know what I would have done in the same situation as I'm sure mssmith1199 is too..the outcome would have been significantly different but you wouldn't have known about it because it wouldn't have been newsworthy.....Dennis

[rgatijnet1]

The judge ALSO did not like the fact that the dog alerted in ONE place, after walking around the entire coach, and that the owner consented to let the officers inspect that compartment BUT the officers were intent on getting inside and they ignored him and searched inside the coach.
In addition, the facts stated by the officer to get the warrant, failed to mention the first stop, or give any independent information that warranted the second stop.
Had the officers followed the proper LEGAL procedures there would have been NO second stop and the money never would have been seized. It was only through illegal deception by the officers that the money was ever seized to begin with.
If officers are allowed to break the law to arrest people or seize money that they think is derived from criminal activity, then that makes them no better than the other criminals.
In fact Nevada has passed a new bill, effective Oct 1, that prevents this type of activity on Nevada highways, because of all of the complaints/lawsuits.

[msmith1199]

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.

[rgatijnet1]

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.

[dodge_guy]

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!

[msmith1199]

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.