Tyrone chief decries changes to seizure laws

Tyrone Police Chief Brandon Perkins. November 2011 file photo.

Tyrone Police Chief Brandon Perkins is concerned about proposed state legislation that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to seize cash, cars and other property used in the drug trade.

In a letter to Tyrone residents, Perkins notes that such seizures are one of the best ways to hit drug dealers where it hurts most: in their wallet. Because many drug offenders only serve two or three years in prison, going after the money produced by their organizations is one of the most effective ways to combat drug criminals, Perkins wrote.

Perkins is asking residents to contact legislators Rep. Virgil Fludd, D-Tyrone and Sen. Ronnie Chance, R-Tyrone, to fight House Bill 1, a 91-page bill that would enact sweeping changes to all forms of law enforcement seizures from those selling drugs to gambling and prostitution operations.

According to the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, House Bill 1 would make it more difficult to seize weapons used by drug dealers and also make it easier for parties not involved in the drug transaction to potentially claim ownership of the property.

The bill also changes the burden of proof in seizure cases from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”

HB 1 also makes it easier for a person unrelated to the crime to argue that the property in question should not be forfeited. Such a person would have to show they did not consent to the crime, did not know that it was likely to have occurred, and they did not own a motor vehicle specifically jointly with the person whose crime allowed the forfeiture process to convene, among several other requirements.

Three of the co-sponsors of HB 1 are attorneys: Republican Representatives Wendell K. Willard, Edward H. Lindsey Jr. and Democrat Representative Stacey Y. Abrams.

Perkins said he agrees with a portion of the bill which strengthens the reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies to disclose what property they have seized. He also acknowledged that some law enforcement agencies apparently aren’t meeting the current reporting guidelines. Dealing with those issues can be handled by sanctioning those particular law enforcement agencies instead of making it more difficult on all police agencies, Perkins said.

“My concern is that they’re making it harder for law enforcement to seize the proceeds of criminal activity,” Perkins said in an interview Thursday afternoon.

Forfeited drug money also helps police departments such as Tyrone pay for training and equipment, lifting the burden on taxpayers, Perkins said.

Tyrone gets its federal drug seizure funds through participation on the Fayette County Sheriff’s Department’s Tactical Narcotic Team, which secures seized funds through federal drug seizure laws, Perkins said. Those funds have paid for new police cars, computers and report-writing software, shotguns for all officers and a recent renovation of the department’s basement to add office, storage and training space, Perkins said.

Because those funds were available, it relieved Tyrone taxpayers of the burden for paying for them, Perkins added.

“I don’t think citizens realize how much drug money helps us run our agencies and diminishes our draw from public funds,” Perkins said.

The basement renovation cost about $100,000 and the computers cost upwards of $80,000 for example, the chief noted.

Perkins said he understands the concern of some interest groups backing the bill who think law enforcement targets certain people for seizures. As far as the Tyrone department is concerned, the agency does not directly seize any items or money, though it benefits from such seizures conducted by other agencies.

Perkins said he feels that drug seizures should not be considered “a free for all” for police to take items and cash to help their budgets. At the same time, he doesn’t want to see seizure restrictions become too burdensome on law enforcement.

“Our mission is to get drugs off the street, not seize people’s property,” Perkins said. “But in cases where we can legally use that against them, we should be able to do that and I don’t think the state should be tying our hands.”

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

From a review of the book:

Quote:

They show how crusading legislators and unfair prosecutors are remaking American law into a weapon wielded by the government and how the erosion of the legal principles we hold dearsuch as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incriminationis destroying the presumption of innocence.

I understand your concern. To paint the entire federal government with a broad brush is difficult to swallow based on my experience. Civil Rights attorneys and current specialists in habeas corpus have been dealing with crusading legislators and unfair prosecutors for generations in this country. In my personal experience, it was the 'beloved federal government' that has come to the aid of women, minorities, etc. The Innocense Project, thanks to current scientific advancement has done/is doing much in this area. To correct injustice has been going on for a long time in the country - even before Lincoln. Welcome to the club. I'm sure Libertarians are continuing to search out those who misuse power. Glad to have you aboard. Get the individuals - don't smear the entire system.
Going after persons has proven effective in court. (They [those who abuse our Constitution] are also entitled to due-process)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - habeas corpus

Lincoln the standard bearer of the big government "solution" was the first President to suspend habeas corpus and it continues today off and on depending on "circumstances".

So much for due process and Constitutional protections. It's this entire system that delivers these results DM.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
PTCO-habeas corpus

When the Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, he issued a warrant for the arrest of Rodger Taney who was the head justice of the supreme court at the time. This arrest was never carried out but it estimated that between 13 and 30 thousand were without habeas corpus. Lincoln's response was

Quote:

"As commander in chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams3.html

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
The party of Lincoln

Some members of this current Republican Party - that tried to brag about being the PARTY OF LINCOLN (in a weak attempt to get African American votes) - are now openly acknowledging what many historians have always known regarding President Lincoln. According to history, President Lincoln - as men and women in power have done throughout history - did what he could to maintain his power and reach his goal. Are the current Republicans (southern) still trying to go with the LIE of being proud of Lincoln's accomplishments regarding ending slavery? African Americans have been aware of President's Lincoln's goals and what he wanted for 'black folk'. The conversations between Lincoln and Frederick Douglas prove that he was more of a pragmatist than a 'humanist'. However, the results did 'free' many physically. . .and he kept the country together at that time. What continued the separation years later is the ending of Jim Crow - another form of 'slavery'.

Charles Adams:

Charles Adams is the author of When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts That Built America, and For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization

The 'liberals' in our country are well aware of the Charles Adams' in our midst. So are moderate conservatives. It is too bad that conservatives and progressives cannot work together to maintain the greatness of these United States.
We're more than TAXES. No one is fooled about the theme of 'taxes' - as the great divider between citizens and government. (It is a concern - but the souths seceding will not help the south to maintain the American Dream without federal assistance) No one is going to pick the crops of the south for free. And the 'new' American will not subject themselves to racist attitudes. The ignorance of racism and the quest for supremacy based on skin color is becoming more and more obsolete. The next generation is our hope. The generation of 20-40 is meeting the challenge.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights act

While 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it.

The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Progressives have no interest in maintaining the greatness of the United States... at least not what made this Country great that is... Now a Socialist utopia now that is another subject.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

The more you keep sharing this crap throughout the country - the more minorities/youth leave (ignore) the Republican Party. Sad. (But beneficial to the Democrats and/or Independents. Thank you.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
So are his claims right or wrong?

Vote Libertarian...,

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Labels - 70 years ago

One needs to look at what was accomplished rather than the label of the person/pesrons who were in 'power'.
Often 'claims' don't represent TRUTH. At least voting Libertarian will insure a Democrat in office for a long, long time. Vote for the American people - not politicians who continue to worry about the next election. . and sell their soul to the highest bidder (REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR AFFILIATION) The southern states challenging the Voting Rights Act at this time - when some feel that the only reason we have an African American president is because of the 'black' vote is very, very telling. . .and very destructive to the reputation of American's progress in race-relations.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
So he was right?

I firmly believe the current day Dems will take us off the cliff, Sam Nunn they are not.
.
Frankly, gridlock in DC is a much better option.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Jim Crow was a democrat

nuff said

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe!

LOL! Are you a product of public southern education? You are the stereotype of what the rest of the nation is beginning to perceive as the 'current southerner' - and you are a fast disappearing perception of a 'southerner',(IMO) hopefully. Conservatism, by definition, does not mean 'racist'. But your inability to understand history is pathetic. But please, please keep posting. 'Nuff said.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Spyglass

Thanks for sharing your opinion. We went off the cliff before Obama was elected. We're slowly climbing out of the mess - hopefully without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The current day Republicans are making it easy for the current day DEMOCRATS - while the American people are being left behind because of GRIDLOCK! There will be an attempt by the Republicans to correct the perception of the party - but in the meantime, some Red States will become Blue. Maybe when the south stops fighting the Civil War, we will become the United States.

So he was right? Not in my opinion.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
How old are you Lindsey?

Let's look at the facts:

Quote:

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[10] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[11]

Where did you learn your history? But keep posting. You just can't understand who the Democrats were in 1964. You may not have been born - but check all of the history books - and stop denying the truth of who was against the Civil Rights Act.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
What does age have to do with FACTS DM?

I notice whenever you have actual FACTS instead of Rhetoric given to you...you almost always get defensive and try to use ad hominem attacks to try to deflect the posters credibility.

You have stated here over and over that the old Southern Racist Democrats morphed into the New Republicans and the old Republicans morphed into the new Democrats.

Funny how all of those Democrats that voted AGAINST the Civil Rights act STAYED Democrats until retirement so....sort of blows your "theory" out of the water...

DM you can believe the Earth is flat.. You can know it because someone taught you this "fact" and unless someone else can break your "fact" with a stronger factual argument then you will always believe YOUR fact as being truthful.

However, once someone comes along and breaks your "fact" with either Science or a preponderance of the evidence and shows your "fact" to be in fact "fact-less" then your fact has no weight..

That's a fact DM..and your "facts" have been shown to be weightless.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey - Age?

Must be age - certainly can't be ignorance of American history! Or maybe stubbornness to acknowledge reality?

But good stuff to share with those who just can't believe that people like you still exist.

Lindseys wisdom:

Quote:

DM you can believe the Earth is flat.. You can know it because someone taught you this "fact" and unless someone else can break your "fact" with a stronger factual argument then you will always believe YOUR fact as being truthful.

Russell's speech is in the Congressional Record. It is a fact - and not 'weightless' - LOL!!

The 'southern' Dixie-crats were AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS. The Democratic Party under Lyndon Johnson voted for Civil Rights.

Labels can't help the Republicans of today when dealing with HISTORY. Russell spoke for those Democrats in 1964 - and the south lost the Democratic Party. Romney's 47% was a strong reminder of the Republicans and Dixiecrats of the '60's. Even he realizes that that statement was a big mistake. . .and not factual. Lee Atwater stated that 'taxes' would not appear 'racist'. Well, Americans are not as blind as Atwater had hoped. There are bigger issues on our table today; education of our young; employment; security; etc. Too bad we have this 'racial' thing that part of the country holds so dear. (Some believed it would be an important political tool - but they did not realize the change in demographics and the minority that is legal has power at the voting booth. Racism is not something that most Americans are proud of.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
LINDSEY

FACTS ARE FACTS! You and I may have a different interpretation - but no matter how you spin it, Lyndon Johnson was right. At the signing of the Civil RIghts Act, the Democratic Party LOST THE SOUTH. THAT IS NOT A THEORY.

Black folk listened to Bill Cosby some years ago - to the delight of 'white folk'. Are 'white folk' listening to him today?

Quote:

We need to teach the correct history of our country

Richard Russell, a Republican, spoke for the south at that time. (1964)

But you and Joe Kawfi are gifts to the Democratic Party

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Ok Dm right there you broke your own argument...
Dm wrote:

FACTS ARE FACTS! You and I may have a different interpretation - but no matter how you spin it, Lyndon Johnson was right. At the signing of the Civil RIghts Act, the Democratic Party LOST THE SOUTH. THAT IS NOT A THEORY.

SO exactly where and when did those Democrats switch to the Republican party and where and when did the Republicans switch to the Democrat part as you claim..?

btw-Joe was right.. Jim Crow was a Democrat plot so....

"In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”"

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
The Dixie-crats of the '60's (Democrats)

They were against the Civil Rights Act that was signed by Lyndon Johnson.

Quote:

Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

This is why they agreed with the Republican, Russell - and the south became 'Republican'.

Quote:

Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
From DM's

From DM's FACTS:

Quote:

Lyndon Johnson was right. At the signing of the Civil RIghts Act, the Democratic Party LOST THE SOUTH. THAT IS NOT A THEORY.

FROM LINDSEY'S SHARING:

Quote:

However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”"

Lyndon was right. Thanks for the validation.

Quote:

SO exactly where and when did those Democrats switch to the Republican party and where and when did the Republicans switch to the Democrat part as you claim..?

When the SOLID DEMOCRATS switched to the Republican Party and joined Russell after the signing of the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans did not agree with the Democrats who signed the bill. Get it? Thanks Lindsey - you're interesting in your determination to change history and glorify the Republican Party of the 60's.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Name One DM...
Davids mom wrote:

When the SOLID DEMOCRATS switched to the Republican Party and joined Russell after the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

After the 1964 Civil Rights vote.. name those Democrats that voted against it and then went over to the Republican Party.

You stated it as fact DM...now I am asking you a direct question. Either you can do it or you can't.. I already know the answer Dm.. let's see if you will be intellectually honest or not...

"On this day in 1964, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate, condemned the Democrats’ 57-day filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Leading the Democrats in their opposition to civil rights for African-Americans was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd, who got into politics as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan, spoke against the bill for fourteen straight hours. Democrats still call Robert Byrd “the conscience of the Senate.”

In his speech, Senator Dirksen called on the Democrats to end their filibuster and accept racial equality.

Let's see Byrd was he a Republican when he died... NOPE.. One down many more to go DM...

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Lindsey

You have really whipped the local race hustler into a frenzy. You can tell when she starts using all caps that she has no facts to back up her assertions so she just starts yelling. She was probably yelling at her computer. When people like DM make extreme comparisons, you know they’ve lost the argument. All they can do is pull the racis cards from the bottom of the deck and try to play them as a legitimate hand.

Everyone knows it's the far left that is full of hate and racism. Hey just ask Calypso Louie- He knows.

'They don't want no more black babies'
He says white Americans will lose their majority by 2050 and says they’ve introduced birth control to black women “because they don’t want no more black babies.”

The democrats are pushing abortion and birth control for all. The far left is pro-abortion and are pushing birth control out to minorities because they don't want too many black babies born. The democrats are the party of hate and racism. Their constituents are just too stupid to realize that their leaders don't really like them and are just using them as pawns. The followrs of the democrat party are nothing but useful idiots.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

See my previous post. Do you comprehend DIXIECRATS? I named several - all Democrats from southern states/known as Dixiecrats. And southerners voted Republican ever since. (Sort of like Zell Miller - only some did not change their label - they made their attitude well-known by agreeing with Russell) Not calling Zell Millier a racist in this era - but in order to be elected in the south, one had to be a Republican. . .since the signing of the Civil Rights Act. I realize that you don't agree with history. Today's Republican Party and Democrat Party are not the same as in the '60's - but some actions by some Republicans has made the majority of the country reject the Republican Party. It will be interesting if they can find a leader to promote trust in the Party. Your ranting is helping the Democrats - and I thank you.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh....

... so even though you said they switched parties and have said that over and over what you REALLY meant was they voted as Republicans..

Uhhh...OK.

Nope reconsidered...Show me the votes DM that the Democrats that voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act started voting with the Republicans... Sorry not going to let you get away with the BS that easily...

"Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies."

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Lindsey

You have really whipped the local race hustler into a frenzy. You can tell when she starts using all caps that she has no facts to back up her assertions so she just starts yelling. She was probably yelling at her computer. When people like DM make extreme comparisons, you know they’ve lost the argument. All they can do is pull the racis cards from the bottom of the deck and try to play them as a legitimate hand.

Everyone knows it's the far left that is full of hate and racism. Hey just ask Calypso Louie- He knows.

'They don't want no more black babies'
He says white Americans will lose their majority by 2050 and says they’ve introduced birth control to black women “because they don’t want no more black babies.”

After all, who is out there pushing abortion and birth control for all. The far left is pro-abortion and are pushing birth control out to minorities because they don't want too many black babies born.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mission Accomplished

Expose the lunacy of the last remnant of the 'hateful' southerner. Thanks fellas.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
If by...

...Mission Accomplished you mean to get caught re-interpreting History to fit your own personal agenda and views.. then yep you did it..

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

You are absolutely right! (NOT) Since the signing of the Civil Rights Act, the south has voted DEMOCRAT - and those who lived in areas with a small minority population - voted DEMOCRAT. You are full of Befuddled Stories. . .but if that rocks your boat - be my guest. Those Democrats that I listed didn't have to change their 'label' right away - the south agreed with Russell at that time. According to Lindsey - Democrats (Dixiecrats) in the south supported Jim Crow - and Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act that was signed in the '60's. Ever since the signing of the Civil Rights Act, according to Lindsey - Democrats in the south have been against the 'mixing of the races' and Republicans have been for equal rights for all races/integration in the south. Thank you for the clarification Mr. Lindsey. We are talking about the '60's - history. I know too many wonderful Republicans today who are not RACIST - but secure individuals who are concerned about the financial status of our country. I know too many wonderful Democrats who are not RACIST - but are concerned about the financial status of our country. I don't understand why our leaders (Republican/Democrat) can't discuss their concerns in order to find solutions to our financial problem. AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T AGREE - so I just request that those who even bother to read our discourse - check out history.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM I gave you facts with sources...

...you give me rhetoric with your flavor of spin.

You have stated Over and Over and Over that the RACIST Southern Democrats SWITCHED parties and became Republicans. You have said this for years.

Right here in this thread you said it...

Davids mom wrote:

When the SOLID DEMOCRATS switched to the Republican Party and joined Russell after the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

By SOLID you meant the Racist Southern Democrats that voted against the 64 Civil Rights acts.

This is not the first time. I could find literally dozens of like statements from you spread throughout this blogosphere on many threads related and not related. This has been your theme from day one... We have had this same conversation more then once... I have challenged you over and over and over to show us these Racist Southern Democrats that voted against the 64 CRA where they changed their party affiliations...

You obviously finally checked your "facts" and found that they never did.. so now you come up with this jewel..

Davids mom wrote:

Do you comprehend DIXIECRATS? I named several - all Democrats from southern states/known as Dixiecrats. And southerners voted Republican ever since. but in order to be elected in the south, one had to be a Republican. . .since the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

So in other words they never switched parties like you have stated for years...BUT...they just started voting in lock step with the Republicans..

DM this and I hesitate to even call it logic doesn't even make sense.. What you are NOW saying is that the Racist Democrats became Republican like by voting with them BUT these same Republicans fought these Democrats on Racial issues yet allowed them to join...BUT... then those same Republicans became the Racist Democrats but called themselves Republicans..

DM that is about the most convoluted logic train I have ever read. I have seen twelve year old's that rationalize better then this.

DM the Dixiecrat myth like most of your "facts" are steeped in racial divide and revisionist history none of it based in fact.

I really do hate doing battle with an unarmed opponent but if you want to bring a stick to a gun fight, well that's your choice.

Once again one of MY sources...

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

...and another of MY Sources...

http://stolenhistory.org/the-tea-party-is-racist/

"I surmised that of the most
prominent Dixiecrat Senators and Governors who compose the Dixiecrat Party of 1948, 93% of them did not leave the Democrat Party. They remained loyal Democrats for life. I had always heard that the “Dixiecrats” had switched to the Republican Party after their failed attempt at solidifying segregation in America forever."

I bet you hate it when I use BLACK PEOPLE as my sources don't you DM? Sort of kills another one of your myths that I am a Racist.. Yet I read both of their works... they actually have an unbiased view on history.. I mean what are you going to say... That their just OREOS... bet you do but you can't here without exposing yourself so.....

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - sometimes

You make no sense at all. Then again, it's not surprising given your philosophy.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

I bother to converse with you just to show others that there is another opinion/philosophy in this country. Thank heavens!! You call for government workers to lose the right to vote - and Alabama wants to get from under the Voting RIghts Act. Interesting.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Lincoln

He's textbook Example A of the "ends justifies the means," and unfortunately, a lot of his successors also agree with that supreme arrogance and absolute total disregard for why this country was founded in the first place. They all agree that authoritarian and dictatorial governments are bad....until getting elected, just like Lincoln.

Unfortunately, a lot of poorly-educated products of our American public school system also feel the same exact way about blatant abuse of power but will scream and howl when it one day affects them the same way. Or, maybe not. Middle East and African dictators have shown that a lot of their citizens are ignorant and hopeless trash so why not suppress/kill the hell out of them instead of trying to educate them otherwise? Lot easier to be King or Dictator than to raise up the people you are governing.

There's a lot of Americans very ready to accept a dictator telling them how to live, how to think, where to worship, and what they should or should not to do morally. They would welcome that.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk
Quote:

a lot of poorly-educated products of our American public school system also feel the same exact way about blatant abuse of power but will scream and howl when it one day affects them the same way

No one, regardless of their education, likes to be treated DIFFERENTLY. If the big guys 'do it' - OK - as long as it doesn't affect ME. You're right. It's called 'human nature' unfortunately.

Rove, Norquist, Koch - and Democrat power mongers - don't give a hoot about the poorly-educated in our country - they are concerned about manipulating those who are elected - so as to maintain their power. The 'real' power in this country is the VOTE. (and the 'big guys' underestimated the power of the little giver in our country)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
DM

Maybe it's just me, but I feel if you're going to quote someone, maybe you should use the ENTIRE sentence. It's amazing the difference one word can make in a statement.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

Unfortunately. Sorry about that - was not intentional. I'm agreeing with Nuk. I said:

Quote:

You're right. It's called 'human nature' unfortunately.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
William Shatner Demonstrates Proper Use of a Concealed Weapon

Great example of how to use misdirection to stop a criminal.

Gun Control works "Thank God for Guns" and Gun Control.

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Online
Joined: 03/22/2006
Don't care what side the Shatner video is hilarious

Pro or Anti Gun the scene from Boston Legal is hysterical!!! Watch, wallet gun..here's a link
http://willshatner.blogspot.com/2011/06/gun-control.html

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Remember the children

I think what gets lost in the debate is that we are trying to protect the children, our children.

We aren't talking pot dealers here, we are talking hard core dealers. When the feds move in on a group, they have perhaps been watching them for a year or more. They have done all the background. That is what people don't understand. They have a real good idea if you are knowingly letting dopers use your property as a stash house, cook meth, etc.

It is important to remember the victims are our children, not the dopers or their buddies. Some kids get hooked the first time they try coke, meth, etc. The whole family is then victimized by watching helplessly as their child slowly goes down. All so some doper can buy himself somemore bling.

As the laws are now, I feel an honest person, if they are honest, can prove their property was unknowling used.

As I said earlier, the slimy lawyers and politicans sell themselves to the dopers. It is up to us to say 'no' to changing the laws. The laws are there to protect our children from being victimized. I don't give a rat's a$$### if a doper loses his paycheck. They are poor excuses for human beings. Thank goodness my child never used and was into sports, the laws are there to protect US...remember that. Dopers have way too many rights as it is.
The doper has the money to hire a slick lawyer, or pay off a politican....your helpless child does not.

Citizen_Steve
Citizen_Steve's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2005
Protect our Children

Honestly Suggarfoot I see government abuse as a far bigger threat to a happy future for my kids than drug abuse. A parent cannot protect their kids from all evils, but drugs are a choice and parents can do quite a lot to equip their kids on such choices. But continuing to expand the profit incentive of our already abusive authority will collectively harm our kids to a much greater degree than will drug abuse.

Steve

whsdad
whsdad's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2007
Asset forfeiture laws are wrong...

Sorry Chief, I understand what you are trying to do, and how hard your job is, but asset forfeiture laws that allow non-judicial seizure of property by LE are wrong. Not only is is fertile ground for abuse, but it violates a fundamental principle of our legal system, innocent until PROVEN guilt in a court of law.

If you feel you have a legitimate claim to their property as compensation for your expenses, wait until after conviction then pursue it in civil court just like the rest of us.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
LEGALIZE

And move on..

The war on drugs is a HUGE failure.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Dopers have all the rights!

I agree with Perkins. As a property owner it would be very hard ..not..to know that the dopers were using it to cook meth, stash dope, etc. If you knowingly rent to a doper so he can sell kids a slow death, you deserve to loose your property.

I strongly believe in hitting the dopers in the pocket. They are slime. Too bad our politicans want to cuddle up to them. It is all about money and getting the pockets lined.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Suggarfoot - No one

Could disagree with you, except maybe those that have been found innocent and can't get their property returned to them because it has been sold by law enforcement.

How many innocent people should lose their property because of our zeal to crack down on drug dealers. How many hotel owners not knowing drug activity is going on on their property lose their life's work to law enforcement?

This law simply "cancels" due process, a Constitutional right.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Property Rights - Be careful

Be careful what you ask for, all it takes is someone that doesn't like what you say, what you do, or simply how you look to set you up to have your property taken from you. Our law enforcement agencies, as Tyrone Police Chief Brandon Perkins points out, use property seizures to meet budgetary constraints, unfortunately this property can easily be yours.

"The presumptive seizure of property permitted by the act inflicts punishment without proof. It reverses the presumption of innocence that is the basis of our criminal justice system. The act contravenes another of the fundamental Rights of Englishmen — no crime without intent. An owner’s property can be seized if a trespasser, unbeknownst to an owner or over his objection, uses it to “facilitate” the commission of an offense."

“An owner’s property can be seized if a trespasser, unbeknownst to an owner or over his objection, uses it to “facilitate” the commission of an offense. “ continuing this logic of the law, “With “probable cause,” law enforcement can seize property, and the statute gives them incentives for seizure. …..”law enforcement agencies retain the proceeds. ….”The forfeiture provision was intended to leave suspected drug traffickers unprotected by the traditional safeguards of criminal procedure. But this cannot be done without also leaving the innocent unprotected. By permitting punishment without indictment, prior to conviction, and despite acquittal, property rather than crime has become the target………Some of them have also learned that it is just as easy to go after the property of the innocent as it is to go after the property of the guilty.”

Roberts, Paul Craig; Stratton, Lawrence M. (2008-03-25). The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO.. Don't know Georgia's procedures...

...but.. In Alabama once we seize property it was held until the deposition of the trial.. if the subject is found not guilty then the property was released back to them... IF the subject was found guilty.. then we had a separate hearing to have the property condemned. If we could show a link to the drug trade and the property and the Judge agreed we got the property... if not it reverted.

Certain things like Cash, Weapons if seized at the time of arrest automatically reverted to seizure. However, cash could be returned IF the CONVICTED drug dealer could prove the cash was NOT part of their illegal activities.

Weapons automatically were seized.. possession of a weapon in conjunction with drugs and dealing those drugs resulted in an automatic forfeiture.

Criminals should not be able to profit from their criminal activity..

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - property

Please read the referenced book.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO I will read it...

... but just to be clear I am against seizure of property NOT tied to the criminal act... BUT... I am for seizure of property gained by the act..

If a drug dealer used his proceeds to buy a car or a house then it should be seized...much like a Murderer should not profit from selling their stories to the Media or making a movie or book deals.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - The

current law gives authorities broad interpretive power to decide. No due process. If you're innocent and you can't access your property to protect yourself, then you are deprived of not only your property but you best chance of proving yourself innocent.

I don't see any in between on this Lindsey.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Lindsey

What's more important, expediency or due process?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Due Process...

...what's your point?

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
This aint Alabama

The seizure of property in many cases has become a business model for many law enforcement agencies. Sort of the next step beyond speed traps. Its especially heinous because the proceeds are kept by whatever law enforcement agency does the seizing. This is a formula that results in due process being thrown out the window.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SPQR: Totally agree

It also removes all presumption of innocence before the fact when the State can freeze, seize and even sell someone else's property before they have their day in court to answer to the charges. Even if found not guilty, they then usually have to fight like hell to reclaim what is their own to begin with.

This has been widely abused by the Feds for years(we seize all your bank accounts and then make you beg to pay for an attorney to represent you against "us") and now a lot of various states and local jurisdictions have gotten in on the act because it's lucrative for them.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So should Criminals profit from their crimes SPQR?

I just want to clarify your position.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Lindsey

are you a criminal before you have your day in court?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
SPQR Why do you ask...?

...and would that matter to the issue at hand?

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Lindsey

On the presumption of innocence until proven guilty I do not understand seizing property for an indefinite period waiting for your day in court or in some cases waiting to be formally charged. If this was Mexico, to me, it would be understandable but here it seems to contradict the basic premise this country was founded on. But maybe I missed something. Perhaps I could be enlightened.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
See reply to PTCO..

...feel no need to repeat myself.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - Does

the end justify the means? How much freedom do you give up to catch criminals? The fact is that this law works against the innocent.

Let me illustrate how absurd this law is, let's suppose that a law was passed that was a capital offense. Occasionally, we all recognized up front that there would be those that may be innocent, but they would lose their life anyway. The logic would be that we shouldn't let criminals get away.

When we deprive the innocent of their property without due process, it is morally the same thing.

The fact is that law enforcement everywhere has become "addicted" to this source of funding, and in some cases at the expense of freedom. How do we protect the innocent? Due process.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO..Please note I said "Convicted" of a crime...

I do not condone the seizure of property before conviction other then in cases of evidence or property demonstrably purchased illicitly i.e. cars, jewelry property easily converted. By this let me give an example.. 20yo male with no visible means of support...has $10k+ Jewelry $40k+ car.. no note maybe $10k in cash....

This hypothetical individual is arrested and charged with Drug trafficking.
That property can be demonstrated to a Grand Jury that it was gained illicitly through drug trafficking thus should be seized.. Now if the perp was found Not guilty then the property has to revert... of course the IRS and State is going to be asking questions..but wasn't Capone taken down for Tax evasion so...

Property will always be seized for instance if a gun was used in a Murder then of course the weapon has to be seized... I am sure you are not saying that the Gun should be given back to the suspect simply because he/she has not been convicted yet right?

So the 4th can be abridged under certain conditions before Due Process begins..

Has it been abused.. I am sure.. but do you really want to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Do you really want to give a drug dealer his cash, gold and cars back that was purchased through their criminal acts?

If I stole your property I have converted that property to my property. Should it not be returned to you upon my arrest and conviction.. I mean I possessed it so by definition it is my property.. would you want me to keep it until my conviction.. maybe destroying it or converting it to cash maybe to even pay for my defense? Of course you would.. so was MY 4th rights abridged if it was seized..NO.. because the property was gained from a CRIMINAL act..and I should not be able to profit from that act.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
S. Lindsey - So

So you don't believe that the concept of presumed innocence has merit in all cases?

Who decides to which cases it should be applied?

If it is the state, then I will take my chances with the punks, they offer less of a threat to me than an all powerful government.

Evidence is different than property, evidence can be tangible assets used in the commission of a crime a gun, a baseball bat, a car, etc. This can't be extended to all assets. If so, it would mean that if you were ever charged with possession of drugs, because someone planted them in your car, called the police to inform them of your distribution of drugs, then all your assets could be seized. All assets..... your home, your bank accounts, your cars, your furniture, etc. could all be taken from you. You know what, all it takes is an unidentified phone call. This is how the law works now.

When we accept one small bit of lost freedom, then it is just the beginning of a much larger loss.

Without due process we are all at risk, I am certain you can see this.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO... again not sure about Ga....but...

... I seriously doubt that someone could drop an 8 ball in your car and the Police can then seize your home and bank accounts without probable cause.. They HAVE to show linkage even in Georgia...

Do you have any specific cases?

" With criminal forfeiture, it is the owner who is on trial, and the property can only be forfeited if the owner has first been convicted of a crime. But with civil forfeiture, the government can proceed against the property directly under the legal fiction that the property somehow acted to assist in the commission of a crime."

Are we speaking of Civil or Criminal.. I just check Georgia Case Law... no asset forfeitures are made until AFTER a conviction...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - Read

the book.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO...

I will... but you may be confusing the two.. Criminal asset forfeiture is different then Civil forfeiture..

Now Civil forfeiture laws are a joke and a travesty. These laws switch the burden of proof onto the person and not the Government...

But that was not the comments nor the discussion. It's common many people confuse the two...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Well Lindsey

A law, whether civil or criminal that takes property without due process is wrongheaded, immoral and unconstitutional.

The current laws have corrupted our law enforcement officials with money that they think they need to run their departments. It, in short, is an industry powered by other laws that make drugs illegal. It is a political force empowered by controlling human action.

BTW, I am not confusing the laws, it is a criminal act to sell or distribute drugs in America as broadly defined by the courts under the Federal RICO Act. These laws fuel local police agencies by using the RICO Act for the distribution of assets seized to agencies involved in the arrest of suspects.

Read the book. ;-)

http:// www. gambling-law-us. com/Federal-Laws /rico.htm

You have to eliminate spaces in the above link, so I don't get thrown into The Citizen twilight zone.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Got the book today PTCO...

... I still believe that assets gained from a Criminal act may be seized BEFORE conviction. Simply for the reason to deny those assets to the presumed criminal for use or conversion.

But believe me I see and agree with your point.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey

Enjoy the book, you may change your mind after reading it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Honestly I doubt it...

...busted too many drug dealers in my lifetime and saw the evil they did to kids and adults alike while living like kings...Taking their "stuff" away seemed to hurt them more then the jail time they got...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey - This

reasoning is the reason I could never be considered a conservative.

Enjoy the book.....and remember if one person loses their property without due process, you could too.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Most people who have 'busted drug dealers' and who are in certified law enforcement positions are 'conservative'. Most that I have come in contact with for well over 30 years uphold the law and respect due process. Everyone is entitled to their personal feelings. - but I'm glad to say that the majority of certified law officers follow the law. Is 'due process' ignored in Georgia? From what I read here, that is a concern.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I

would suggest that you read the book, it's not about Georgia, it's about your beloved Federal Government.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
taking their paychecks from making kids addicks is the way to go

Shame on the reps for trying to make it easier for the dopers and their relatives to keep their property. I have seen some of these things go down at the airport and have known a few DEA. Believe me when I tell you the dopers have all the rights. They are given every opportunity to explain why they are traveling with 300,000. in cash but have no job, never had one, and many prior arrest for drugs. They also have drug dogs that will either hit on the money or not. Personally, I would open my wallet and let the dogs sniff as I have nothing to hide.

That illegal money is used to buy cop cars so the taxpayers don't have to. It is a win win for the taxpayer.

I question what kind of people these lawmakers/reps are to side with the drug dealers and make it easier.

Every opportunity is given to this slime to prover ownership. What happened is they found some slick high priced lawyer that has told them step by step how to get it through a 3rd party with a little bending of the laws. Then the dopers buy a few well placed people.

They get to keep their dope money and buy more and make more kids addicts.
These politicans should be sooooo proud of themselves.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
Sweetfeet & Proclamation

Be it resolved that Spell Check will at times prevent a poster from appearing to be a fool!

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Oh well

when you're a hammer.......