Under Asset Forfeiture Law, Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families' Bail Money

by Radley Balko

When the Brown County, Wis., Drug Task Force arrested her son Joel last February, Beverly Greer started piecing together his bail.

She used part of her disability payment and her tax return. Joel Greer's wife also chipped in, as did his brother and two sisters. On Feb. 29, a judge set Greer's bail at $7,500, and his mother called the Brown County jail to see where and how she could get him out. "The police specifically told us to bring cash," Greer says. "Not a cashier's check or a credit card. They said cash."

So Greer and her family visited a series of ATMs, and on March 1, she brought the money to the jail, thinking she'd be taking Joel Greer home. But she left without her money, or her son.

Instead jail officials called in the same Drug Task Force that arrested Greer. A drug-sniffing dog inspected the Greers' cash, and about a half-hour later, Beverly Greer said, a police officer told her the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics on the bills -- and that the police department would be confiscating the bail money.

"I told them the money had just come from the bank," Beverly Greer says. "We had just taken it out. If the money had drugs on it, then they should go seize all the money at the bank, too. I just don't understand how they could do that."

Read More

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Jail Guards Turn Women's Prison Into Their Personal Sex Dungeon
- Louisiana: Cops Used Red Light Cameras For Personal Profit
- Judge's Handyman Cops Plea in Georgia Sex, Drugs, Frame-Up
- The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You
- Eyewitnesses describe the terror of DWI checkpoint shooting
- California Deputy Detains Man for Video Recording Arrest, Accusing him of Possibly Plotting Murder
- Slaton Police Arrest Woman After Request to See Warrant; Say They'll Apologize If She Doesn't File Suit
- SPCA Wants Humane Officer Who Shot Kittens Fired

Comments

Add Comment

Page 1 of 1

Rwolf

Posted: May 24 2012, 1:08 PM

Link

108198

Next: Police Drones—Recording Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

Police are salivating at the prospect of having drones to spy on lawful citizens. Congress approved 30,000 drones in U.S. Skies. That amounts to 600 drones for every state.

It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants, personal conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Consider the House just passed CISPA the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. If passed by the Senate, CISPA will allow——the military and NSA spy agency (warrant-less spying) on Americans’ private Internet electronic Communications by using so-called (Government certified self-protected cyber entities” that may share with NSA your private Internet activity, e.g. emails, faxes, phone calls and confidential transmitted files they believe might relate to a cyber threat or crime—circumventing the Fourth Amendment—with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. CISPA does not clearly define what is an element or self-protected cyber entity, that could broadly mean anything, e.g. a private computer, local or national network, website, an online service.

Despite some cities and counties banning and restricting police using drones to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive to call in Federal Drones, (Civil Asset forfeiture sharing) that can result from drone surveillance). Should (no-warrant drone surveillance evidence) be allowed in courts circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example (drones’ recording conversations in private homes and businesses, expect federal and local police civil asset property forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: any conversation picked up by a drone inside a home or business, police can take out of context to institute arrests; or civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the home/business and other assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone be convicted before police can civilly forfeit their property—by turning their investigation over to the Federal Government that can rebate to the referring local police department 80% of assets forfeited. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture that have nothing to do with illegal drugs.

Consider: if CISPA is passed by Congress it will provide Government, police and government contractors (without warrants) the incentive (to take out of context) any innocent—hastily written email, fax or other Internet activity to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, assess fines and or civilly forfeit a business or property. U.S. Government can use CISPA to (certify any employee) including employees that work for a Government certified cyber self-protected entity—opening the door for certified employees to spy on their employers and clients. U.S. Government is not prohibited from paying any person including Government Certified Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements or Certified Employees part of government forfeited assets or other compensation that result from the aforementioned providing U.S. Government a corporation’s confidential information or clients’ private information—that otherwise would require a warrant. U.S. Government currently contracts on a fee/commission basis with Self Protected Cyber Entities, Elements and Contractors that have security clearances to participate in facilitating arrests and Government asset forfeitures.

Currently Government can't use evidence obtained through illegal Internet searches of e.g. private emails and transmitted files without a warrant, however that will change if CISPA or a similar bill is passed by Congress. Since CISPA, two additional cyber-security bills have been created in the Senate called, “The Cyber Security Act of 2012” and “SECURE IT Act”. Both bills appear unconstitutional; appear designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. The Cyber Security Act of 2012 formally known as S. 2105 was created by Senate Democrats, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Similar to CISPA, the Cyber security Act of 2012 would abolish legal walls that stop Federal government and private companies sharing information.

The SECURE IT Act: S. 2151 was introduced by Senate Republicans on March 1st 2012: would require federal contractors to alert government about any cyber threats, forcing such communications between government regulators and corporations. The SECURE IT Act authorizes sharing of persons’ private Internet information (without a warrant) going beyond what is necessary to describe a believed cyber threat. SECURE Act fails to create a regulatory system at the Federal level to oversee cyber-security threats opening the door for a person or businesses’ confidential information to be misused and misappropriated by government agencies and private cyber entities.

Government should be prohibited from using independent contractors, created non-profit organizations and so-call (certified self protected cyber entities) to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. Corrupt police, U.S. Government Agencies and Government Contractors may too easily use private Internet transmissions, emails and transmitted files it is free to collect without a warrant to extort corporations, politicians and Citizens; or sell confidential information gleaned from warrant-less Internet Surveillance. Confidential Information in corrupt hands can be worth more than illegal drugs.

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy