Police in Mississippi find profit in peanut truck searching

Discuss

23 Responses to “Police in Mississippi find profit in peanut truck searching”

  1. SKR says:

    @#17 Anon

    I think you are the one that is unaware of what the police are doing to people.

    Everyone should check out this article about asset forfeiture. It breaks down the details better than I can.

    The Forfeiture Racket

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      OK. I read the whole article and I’m sick to my stomach. It seems our only hope lies at the end of that article: expansion of the classes of uncharged, untried, unconvicted “criminals” that can have their assets seized.

  2. tizroc says:

    The part I hate most about the douche bags is that if they prove that it was legal from sales that the cops can charge for the service of securing and counting the money. As if it was a service that was requested. Usually about 10% of the total or more. A great many of the kinds of stops are wet dreams for they cops because even if it is totally legal they get tons of money for stopping law abiding citizens.

    So even if this was a legal and legit situation the cops will act life fsckin thieves in the night and rape an American citizen of her earned money.. then these fascists wonder why people keep voting down bills to increase their revenue. Maybe if they their charges with some respect and didn’t rape them blind we might respect them!

  3. Anonymous says:

    #16 – Um, I think you might be a bit confused on just what it is the cops are doing to people…

    • Anonymous says:

      What some of the cops in Eugene Oregon were doing to people was to require sexual services under threat of otherwise being taken to jail. What the other Eugene cops were doing was to gather in solidarity to deny the claims of sexual abuse and fight against a civilian review board. After a decade of these activities and testimony of 15 or 18 of the victims in court, two of Eugine’s finest were found guilty and sent off to prison.

  4. Anonymous says:

    This reminds me of the guy who was driving through Texas on his way to buy a car. They seized his money without ever charging him with anything, so now he doesn’t have his money OR his dream car. It’s crazy, but I can’t for the life of me find that law that makes it legal for the police to operate outside of the law.

  5. phisrow says:

    Go go gadget asset forfeiture…

  6. manicbassman says:

    of course the dog “alerted”… 90% of all money is contaminated with cocaine… which means there was sufficient cocaine there to set the dog off…

  7. Phikus says:

    Who’da thought working for peanuts would be so lucrative?

    And in a nutshell, having a police chief named Crapps in on the peanut case puts an ironic spin on it, doncha think?

  8. cymk says:

    Unless she actually had drugs on her, I don’t see why the money (presumably hers) would be confiscated, let alone why she would be jailed. Last time I checked reckless driving was not a jailable offense. Does someone know Mississippi law? Can someone explain this to me? How does “driving all crazy” qualify the use of a drug sniffing dog? (was the dog conveniently with them, waiting for this truck?)

    On an unrelated note, we should set up a fund to get Police Chief Crapps a thesaurus, “crazy” it too ambiguous a verb to describe questionable driving and the behavior of a dog in one conversation.

    • Matt J says:

      If the police find a large sum of money, they are allowed to confiscate it, and return it only when given proof of its origin.

      • cymk says:

        Ok, fair enough I’ll give you that. But why does officer Josh Hayman, the lone drug enforcement officer, think to use his drug sniffing dog just because the trucker is driving erratically?

        • querent says:

          them ssippi cops love the drug dogs. they’ll call them out for anything. i had a drug dog used on my car when I was pulled over for a non-functioning tail-light. the dog “responded,” then they didn’t find anything. because there were no drugs.

          the cop threw a tennis ball against the car, and then the dog barked. that was the “response.” but there were no drugs.

          hm….

  9. manicbassman says:

    this is Mississippi… driving while black in possession of money is probable cause… having seized it, you’ll have a hard time getting it back…

    • querent says:

      white too. this is my home territory. or at least, white-looks-like-a-hippy or white-in-a-black-neighborhood.

      mississippi cops are the most flagrantly unconstitutional (without being in conscious violation) that I have ever known. they embody the legendary dick nixon quote, “if the president does it, it can’t be illegal.” to them, they are the law. they do not understand checks and balances.

      makes me think “constitutional government” is just a cuddly abstraction layered over the still extant strong-arm hierarchies.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Truck driver here. Morton is a tiny town about 45 minutes east of Jackson. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that their police force would go nuts over a chance to strongarm some truck driver into giving up their money.

    I can’t say if it is or isn’t drug money; only that yeah, that’s a little odd that she’d have so much in liquid assets just sitting in her truck cab. But you never know; she might have hit it big in a casino somewhere and wanted to keep it quiet so the tax man wouldn’t get any of it. That seems like the most likely situation outside of drug dealing. And without any drugs in the truck, they can’t prove anything.

    But, being a po-dunk backwater bubba town as they are, they’ll still fight like hell to keep her money, even if they can’t figure out anything to charge her with. I think the FBI ought to go down to Morton and start looking very closely at how those people are running their little hick-ass police force.

  11. mhlaxp says:

    Under what circumstances would they be allowed to keep and use the money (the article suggests for equipment upgrades)? If they’re confiscating the money, shouldn’t it be impounded as evidence or something?

    I’m no sort of law-knowing person but I thought that this sort of thing, if it was confiscated from the owner after being deemed illegally obtained or something or other, would be used as a resource but not really spent. Like using it as cash in a drug buy/bust operation, though maybe I got that idea from watching Miami Vice.

  12. SKR says:

    if you have more than 10k in cash on you they can just take it and then the burden of proof is on you.

  13. Osprey101 says:

    This is just more proof that Jimmy Carter is the biggest criminal of ALL TIME.

  14. manicbassman says:

    #7 where have you been for the last ten years? it’s all part of the “War on Drugs”… police forces are allowed to keep assets seized to add to their budgets… and thus they were incentivized to go out and seize assets…

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-42Y63T2-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1179734316&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=40dbfead913c398fe2ae862d1029c3e1

    heavens above… that’s a huge URL…

  15. Phikus says:

    Packed with peanuts, it really satisfies… (*snicker*)

  16. adamrice says:

    If having a truckload of money is illegal, then why is the government handing out truckloads of it to banks?

Leave a Reply