California Sheriff Free to Rob Armored Cars Money of Legal Marijuana Businesses
reason.com
reason.com
That’s not how “innocent until proven guilty” works. It’s the government’s job to collect evidence to prove the law was broken. Source: I served as a federal juror in the last six months. During voire dire, one juror said something like “well, yes - the defendant has to prove his innocence.” This got us a lecture from the judge: we must assume they’re innocent, and the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States.
To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
To make it difficult for drug dealers to continue selling and transporting drugs by seizing proceeds and any property used in those activities, especially in cases where criminal prosecution is impossible or impractical.
I'm on board with abolishing it, but this isn't even a case of a laws unjust, unintended consequences. It's a case of business owners gambling on a known risk and losing.
Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.
Villanueva, in charge of the LA County Sheriff's Department, has refused to participate in basic oversight or accountability from the LA County Board of Supervisors and routinely oversteps his legal boundaries in dealing with issues (his bizarre "sweeps" in Venice, as one example).
The police are an uncontrollable force in this country and will only grow more violent and brazen in their actions as public trust continues to erode.
no knock warrants are not the police's fault.
seizure of people's property is not the police's fault
militarization of police is not their fault
the police are literally using all the tools at their disposal that the law allows them to.
Your frustration should be targeted at the politicians who are influenced by lobbyists and have their seats secured by gerrymandering who give the police these powers.
the police are just easy targets for people's frustration
Must admit, that makes me realise some of the stereotypes I hold about American attitudes to unionism are in need of revision.
But saying "they're just using the tools available" also evades accountability of the police. Police use legal no-knock warrants, yes, but they also routinely murder people during those no-knock warrants with no legal authority to do so and then press to cover up, obfuscate or avoid accountability of those actions:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/1078313707/amir-locke-killed-...
This story specifically is about police using the blurry overlap of local, state and federal authority to specifically target businesses serving dispensaries. These officers targeted Empyreal with pre-textural stops that directly targeted these businesses that have the right to operate in CA.
These officers are deliberately lying and falsifying information to target businesses they see as easy targets. In this instance, the police literally are the problem.
from the og link:
"During the December 9 stop, the deputies claimed a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the van, which Empyreal says is not true: "Video footage from the vehicle does not show the dog alert on the vehicle. Instead, it shows the dog is barely interested in the vehicle."
The deputies obtained a search warrant prior to the November 16 seizure, but Empyreal says the application included several false or misleading statements. It says the deputy who applied for the warrant mistakenly claimed that Empyreal converts money from marijuana businesses into cryptocurrency and falsely asserted that some of the company's clients were not licensed by the state. The deputy also said Empyreal did not have a marijuana business license, which is not required to transport money from dispensaries to banks. Furthermore, a 2020 law says a company that provides such services to state-licensed marijuana businesses "does not commit a crime under any California law."
If you kick in the door of another human being, that has not demonstrably harmed another's person, or by extension, property, you are an armed home invader.
"The law" does not change your moral obligations. "the law" is historically speaking, a very poor measure of morality.
You have every right to extract a lethal price from those that would trespass your person or property at gunpoint, as is happening here. They are armed robbers, and will continue to be until it is no longer worth "the cost".
The police could argue that the they are moral by taking drug money from drug offenders, and using a no knock warrant To catch a criminal.... and as a matter of fact that's exactly what is argued.
Many Indian people consider it immoral to eat a cow but that's moral in America.
The Germans viewed the Jewish people as evil and so the guards could have believed they were doing something moral at Nuremberg.
Morality is vague and hard to pin down.
The law doesn't reflect morality but morality isn't objective, so that's good.
Laws are supposed to be purely utilitarian and functional and to represent what society as a whole views as the correct way to keep the machinery of society running smoothly.
Technically, but that's an Hindu belief not a Indian belief
The no-knock raid that killed Amir Locke around a week ago was done at MPDs insistence, despite a moratorium on no-knock raids being in place.
> the police are literally using all the tools at their disposal that the law allows them to.
Police departments regularly threaten lawmakers and their families (this has happened in SF, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Departmen...) and NYC (https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-attacks-nypd-for-threate...).
Police departments regularly break the law, but they can't be punished because, well, who is going to arrest the police?
That's just human nature and is a constant throughout all time. they need to be punished but the extent of the rot.
The most critical problems in my opinion are when the system itself is rotten.
A no knock warrant is much scarier than a handful of cops who lie.
Because the system does not punish them for their actions.
it sanctions more than just a bad seeds.
This may be relevant if you haven't already seen it.
Real talk though those audio recordings of the police commenting that “that’s all they got” has no place in this country.
Civil asset forfeiture disturbs me. I mean it really, really disturbs me -- deep down in my gut. I have a hard time understanding how it is consistent with the values we (U.S. citizens) claim to hold. I'm not a student of the law, so I won't pretend to have any deep insights into its constitutionality. I just feel it's a malignant tumor on our justice system. I can only wonder how it appears to those in other developed nations, at least those whose laws do not allow such presumptive seizures. It doesn't seem all that far removed from the system of letters of marque that authorized so much piracy in the 16th century -- we can so we will. Honestly, I don't see how any fair-minded person can be anything but sickened by civil asset forfeiture.
They’re mad and bothered that lower classes are able to establish marijuana business in select states, so they have their posse (police) do their bidding.
And why are his officers complaining that the truck is "light", and "what do you mean, that's all you got?"
Let's not pretend this is being done for any reason other than to enrich coffers.
1. Because his department (and possibly him specifically?) get a kickback from the federal agency on asset seizures.
2. To deny that he is simply pocketing the money for his department on his own authority.
Which it is technically accomplishing.
It's very much illegal at the federal level.
Which I think is a good thing, but many arguing this angle for marijuana legalization haven't fully considered the implications.
Nevertheless, it's not the current law as far as the courts are concerned, despite what the 10th amendment says. (I suspect the current SCOTUS wouldn't mind rectifying that, given the proper cases and opportunity.)
But in the current political climate, try saying the words "state's rights" without getting labeled a racist or extremist or anti-masker/vaxxer.