Here we go again with asset forfeiture laws

[TrainChaser]

Whenever anyone wants to quote “odds’ on being a victim, they never count on being the ‘one’ out of however-many. According to the Washington Post, in 2014, law enforcement took more from the American people than burglars did.  Is this country great, or what??? What they're doing completely contradicts the U.S. Constitution.

The problem with one of us being hit with an illegal search and seizure, is that many of us could lose practically everything we've got. Imagine having to replace your rig -- somehow, I don't think insurance covers a problem like this.

Tennesse:  In 2016, law enforcement seized more than $17 million in cash and 3,636 vehicles.  In 2014-2015, they reported $13.44 million plus nearly 4,800 cars and trucks, 146 motorcycles, 10 boats, 168 RVs and vans, 812 miscellaneous items such as papers and jewelry and 54 other major items.  From 2009 to 2014, they collected almost $86 million in cash, plus more in vehicles, boats and other items.

California - In 2014:  $77 million.  Between 2000 and 2013, $696 million, or nearly $50 million each calendar year through Dept of Justice, and almost $108 million from the Treasury Dept during that same 13-year period.

Massachusetts – Almost $139 million between 2000 ($5.5 million) and 2014 ($9.8 million), plus another $63 million in their partnership with the feds.    MA law enforcement gets to keep up to 100% of what they ‘collect’, which is considerable incentive to continue.

Washington State -  From 2001 to 2013, $108 million.

The ‘War on Drugs’ law has been a dead loss in its original (assumed) purpose, but it has been incredibly profitable for law enforcement.  In fact, if it weren’t for the badges, it would be practically impossible to tell the difference between the law and the criminals.  It almost seems like Rvpopeye needs to get busy here…

Most of this info came from the Institute for Justice / “Policing for Profit”.

 

[user 37446]

Good points, especially when the vehicle you have contains everything you own and is your home. It's one thing to "lose" the usage of a passenger vehicle for a while as you call your attorney, rent a car to get back to your sticks and bricks and go on with life. It's another entirely when you are now literally on the side of the road with the clothes on your back watching the tow truck drive off with your home.

 

[tx2sturgis]

More disturbing is that in the few states that have laws limiting CAF, the Federal authorities are directing and rewarding the LEOs for carrying out Federal policy that violates the State's policy.

Local law enforcement no longer work for the locals, they work for the Federal government.

Welcome to reality....during the drone 'registration' period, the FAA sent out enforcement directives to most, if not all, city, county, and state law enforcement agencies outlining what the FAA expected them to do, and NOT do, in the event of a complaint.

They basically said to the local cops, YOU will be OUR eyes on the skies.

Geeze.

 

[John61CT]

Decent recent summaries

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/20/jeff-sessions-wants-to-make-legalized-theft-great-again/

https://boingboing.net/2017/07/20/letters-of-marque.html

 

[user 37446]

Well aside from the obvious political slant of those 2 references, they did at least report some facts about the program's re-entry.

I have no problem with a crook (drug dealer with obvious resale amounts of drugs, or someone trying to run guns into Canada) losing the car he has, and the stash of 100's rubber-banded up etc. My beef is the taking of a person's property when it's such small change items like the kid with an ounce or two of weed.  

Where do you draw the line? 1 pound of weed (for personal consumption of course) vs. 1/5th the amount of crystal meth or Fentanyl... its not solely the amount of the drug, you need to consider what the item is.  I mean, if someone is seriously contributing to the opioid crisis and peoples deaths by making or dealing it, shouldn't they lose their vehicle? Yet it's the person that gets caught with some personal use MJ that will likely lose their ride.  

The really troublesome thing to me is the seizure of plain old cash. The oft repeated story (hopefully true) of the 2 guys going to the Vegas poker match who had $50G's of cash on them that was seized and not returned. Granted, it was a dumb move on their part but if there is no other evidence of narcotics, illegal guns or whatnot, then what's wrong with carrying your cash? May be dumb but it shouldn't be illegal and result in a seizure.

That's why unless there's some very closely written requirements before a seizure is allowed, this whole business is just wrong. Yes bad guys will get away with things if we drop the whole seizure program but our personal liberties continue to be eroded, all in the name of "safety".

 

[user 37446]

I'll see if this copies, if not, search this site below. This is a new proposed US Senate bill 1241 ("Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfitting Act of 2017") that is going in the wrong direction, as far as I think:

From: blog.gainesvillecoin.com, dated June 15th, 2017, entitled "Controversial New Civil Assett Forfeiture Bill"

[font=Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nope, didn't copy so try looking this one up. If you have a bank safety deposit box, gold, bullion, bitcoins... [/font]


Now in Mississippi, they are trying a state bill to require more open disclosure. Here's a bit from the Clarion-Ledger online news, Dec 16th 2016:

Begin quote

"The last Institute of Justice report, issued in November 2015, pointed to how lucrative seized assets can be for law enforcement in Mississippi, saying the roughly 7,000-population city of Richland constructed a new $4.1 million law enforcement training facility with forfeiture funds.

The group says a sign in the building’s window boasts, “Richland Police Station tearfully donated by drug dealers.”

“The controversial facility illustrates the conflict of interest created when law enforcement can directly benefit from the proceeds of forfeiture,” the Institute of Justice said in its report. “Such self-funding is especially worrisome in states like Mississippi where agencies are not required to track or publicly report forfeitures or expenditures from forfeiture funds, leaving the public and lawmakers in the dark.”

Last year, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling requiring the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics to return $293,720 confiscated from an apartment in Crenshaw. The money confiscated totaled $293,720. The property owners said the search warrant was illegal since a location was left blank on the warrant."

End of quote

Disturbing to me that such a small population city could build a 4 million dollar facility with only seized assets funding (that's a lot), but I am also balancing that by the court returning the $293K to the property owner of the apartment due to an omitted address or such. I hope they never find my $293K in cash, a common occurrence I'm sure...

 

[WalkaboutTed]

There is one pretty foolproof method of preventing your vehicle from being seized. Any legal entity has to pay off the commercial lienholder. If the vehicle is valued less than, or close to the current lien, the seizing authority has to pay off the lien first, before they can get legal possession. That makes your vehicle undesirable to greedy government entities.

Yes, I know there is one Texas caselaw that implies the opposite but I've done research on this. Personally I've seen asset forfeiture up close. The second time was in Phoenix, AZ, about 10 years ago. Our handyman was busted for a couple of ounces of weed. His brand new truck and a cargo trailer full of tools were seized. Both were free and clear. It took him months and thousands of dollars to get his truck, trailer and tools back.

The moral of the story is to keep your vehicle worth nothing to would-be corrupt government officials. Our van will be our home. Damn straight that we'll keep it upside down. I view the 2.5% interest rate we'll be paying on the loan as seizure insurance. After having seen asset forfeiture up close, we're willing to pay it. Especially since we'll be in Texas and Oklahoma, a couple of the worst offenders as far as asset seizure. Hubby may be partaking in Colorado, thus possibly having the fragrance of a controlled substance on board, which could draw the attention of canine units in other states...

But I know that not everyone on this forum is not able to go this for multiple reasons. I just wanted to lay out for some, one method of avoiding seizure of a vehicle home.
Ted

 

[John61CT]

Can you point to a step-by-step howto on doing this, preferably on solid legal ground?

 

[WalkaboutTed]

This is long, but it's in answer to your question, John.

Here's the first part of the answer that came up from the Texas.gov advice for "Guidance on the civil asset forfeiture".

http://cud.texas.gov/reports-publications/rb-2001-01-guidance-civil-asset-forfeiture

"TEXAS LAW EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2001
The revised law addresses these problems by: 1) recognizing the rights of the innocent lienholder who acquires and perfects its security interest after the commission of the offense but before the seizure of the property; 2) establishing specific procedures for the seizure of accounts and assets at financial institutions; and 3) authorizing, and in some instances requiring, law enforcement’s disclosure of information to the Texas Banking Department in those instances when an employee of a financial institution is suspected to be involved in the crime.

Protection of Security Interests of Bona Fide. The revised law continues to recognize the rights of the bona fide lienholder that acquires and perfects its security interest, in what is later determined to be contraband, before or during the commission of a criminal act that gives rise to forfeiture. It does not change what the lienholder must establish in order to keep its interest from being forfeited. Section 59.02(c) still requires the lienholder to establish that, at or before the time of acquiring and perfecting the interest, the lienholder did not know or should not reasonably have known of the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture, or that it was likely to occur.

Unlike the prior law, however, the revised statute permits the lienholder who acquires and perfects its security interest after the commission of the offense, but before the seizure of the property, to protect that interest. To prevent the after-acquired security interest from being subject to forfeiture, the lienholder must establish that: 1) it was an interest holder for value at the time the interest in the property was acquired; and 2) it was “without reasonable cause to believe that the property was contraband and did not purposefully avoid learning that the property was contraband.” The new law also specifically provides that the rights of lienholders in seized property remain in effect while the forfeiture proceedings are pending as if the property had remained in the lienholder’s possession.

This next quote from a board:

"I used to do exactly what the OP is talking about. I worked in the Asset Forfeiture Group for a Federal agency. We did lots of homework while investigations were going on in order to identify a target's assets prior to his/her arrest. When all goes well (usually does) all of their assets would be seized via in rem (the thing) prosecution.

When you are pulled over, here's what info a police officer can get:
From an article in Slate:
"Your name and aliases; your Social Security number; where you live; when you were born; the color of your skin and eyes; any scars, tattoos, or identifying marks; your height, vision, and gender; what kind of car you drive, whether it's a stolen vehicle, and your license and plate numbers; your traffic violation history; your local, state, and federal criminal history; and your fingerprints

Local police gather this information from five main databases. A search of records from the state registration agency (called the "Department of Motor Vehicles" in most places) yields information on your car and to whom it's registered. There's another archive of driver's license records, kept in some states by the DMV and in other states by a separate licensing agency, which has facts on where you live, your driving record, and sometimes a digital copy of your license photo. Outstanding arrest warrants will show up in a third database, and a person's criminal history can be found in either the local police records or the federally operated National Crime Information Center database, which culls from local, state, and federal files. (Some police agencies also subscribe to research tools that are available to the general public, like LexisNexis and credit reporting services.)

Access to the databases works a little differently in every agency. In general, police have unrestricted access to the DMV, driver's license, and warrant databases, as well as the local police records. In some departments, the information can be obtained via Windows-based graphical user interfaces, while other offices still use DOS-like text interfaces. Either way, it works a lot like searching for a book at the library: Officers click a shortcut on their computer desktop to open a window that will let them search by name, license number, date of birth, or Social Security number, and return all matching records."

When the cop does a background check, the local police department already has all the information that's on your vehicle title. They already can see if you have a lien on the vehicle. Depending on the police departments' resources as far as the information they have access to during the stop, they could even see how large the lien is via your credit report. With that info, it's easy to see if your vehicle loan is upside down. I can't find it at the moment (I'll post it when I do), but what it boils down to is this: if they have to go through the hassle of paying off the lienholder prior to auctioning off the vehicle for an unknown amount (which might be less than the lien, a seizure won't happen. The state can't sue you for a deficiency if they lose money on the deal. The state is not going to take that gamble.

So you see that if you own your vehicle free and clear, you are easy pickings for thievery. It sounds awfully sinister and Machiavellian, but I don't put any government agency above such tactics and actions. There's a reason why civil asset forfeitures happen to the poor and minorities. Generally they don't have the money to fight it and often the cost of fighting it is more than what the asset is worth. And, this is the most important part of the equation:

If you're poor, you're not likely to have good credit enough to make your vehicle worthless to the authorities.

It's a crazy world we live in, that if you have debt, that you are protected from the law.
Ted

 

[user 37446]

Well I'd rather drive a 30+ year old somewhat shabby looking van than be continually taking loans out. Eventually your loan gets paid off, then what? Buy something else newer? That's the credit trap I'm trying to avoid. Anyway, its all a game in the world we now know is a version of the matrix.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Well I'd rather drive a 30+ year old somewhat shabby looking van than be continually taking loans out. Eventually your loan gets paid off, then what? Buy something else newer? That's the credit trap I'm trying to avoid. Anyway, its all a game in the world we now know is a version of the matrix.

 

[Charlotte's Web]

Heads up!
Hidden compartments in a vehicle now a CRIME:  

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment

Charlotte

 

[user 423]

We have over 5000 forum members. How many have been affected by this and over how many years?

And no stories about friends of friends of friends.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

We have over 5000 forum members.  How many have been affected by this and over how many years?

And no stories about friends of friends of friends.

First they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist

etc.

 

[John61CT]

Yes when something is just plain wrong, actually unAmerican, it is up to all of us to speak up.

Especially if it those less fortunate than ourselves being disproportionately targeted.

 

[user 423]

it is up to all of us to speak up.
Especially if it those less fortunate than ourselves being disproportionately targeted.

And man are there a lot of things to speak up about!

 

[user 37446]

We have over 5000 forum members.  How many have been affected by this and over how many years?

And no stories about friends of friends of friends.

I think the question (which is unanswerable) is how many really active members do we have that actually travel much on the major interstate highways. These seizures occur primarily on major interstates which are known smuggling routes. If our members are not on these roads much they likely won't be stopped. If they are not within 100 miles of the Mexico border they likely won't face questions.  Unfortunately, I have family in Oklahoma, so I go through west Texas (dangerous) and I also have family in N Carolina, so I travel through... S Carolina. 

Maybe you aren't concerned over this practice but I am. 

Here's a June 2017 article that discusses why it continues along major interstates. I am in no way defending those criminals who are involved in the big league smuggling. I don't "imbibe" in recreational or use prescription drugs. I don't carry weapons. But some of our members do one or both. They have a right to know what's out there. 

Begin excerpt, bolding is mine:

[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif]Federal law has South Carolina cops searching cars on interstates for drug money[/font]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif]Posted on June 20, 2017 by Joe from MassPrivateI[/font]
Post and Courier – by David Slade
When Hampton County sheriff’s deputies found $1.7 million stashed in secret compartments of a sport utility vehicle during a traffic stop on Interstate 95, the department confiscated the money and the SUV. The driver walked away with no criminal charges.
The driver “denied any knowledge of the money, and we had no way to connect it to him,” said Hampton County Chief Deputy William Jarrell. “He got a traffic ticket and we pointed him at the bus station.”

The case marked the largest civil asset forfeiture in South Carolina in 2015, but there have been others like it. That police kept the money while no one was charged with a crime also is not unusual.

This is the Hampton County Sheriff’s Department’s photo of $1.7 million in cash seized after a 2015 traffic stop. [/font][/size][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Photo did not copy, sorry)[/font][/font][/size]


[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A bipartisan opposition movement has galvanized against these civil forfeitures. Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group known for extracting no-tax-increase pledges from lawmakers, calls civil asset forfeiture “legalized theft.” The American Civil Liberties Union calls the practice “un-American.”
Law enforcement officials defend these confiscations as a crucial weapon in the War on Drugs, hitting drug traffickers in their wallets while generating money for police budgets. South Carolina police agencies raked in $4.3 million through federal forfeitures in the 2015 budget year, and slightly more the year before that.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Every year in Spartanburg County, the Sheriff’s Office organizes a week-long crackdown on Interstates 26 and 85 involving multiple local and federal agencies. They call it “Rolling Thunder.”
Federal, state and local authorities conducted “Operation Rolling Thunder” on Interstates 85 and 26 in March, pulling over 1,110 vehicles and searching 158. (Alex Hicks Jr./Spartanburg Herald-Journal)
During the March operation, deputies and their colleagues pulled over 1,110 motorists — the majority of whom were black or Hispanic — mostly for infractions such as making improper lane changes or following too closely. Police searched 158 vehicles, including large tour buses. Drug-detecting dogs sniffed around 105 vehicles, and the tour bus luggage, sometimes justifying thorough searches.
Just eight felony arrests were made, but police found and seized 233 pounds of marijuana, nearly 8 kilos of cocaine, 164 ounces of heroin, more than 4,800 prescription drug items, 65 grams of methamphetamine, $139,320 in cash and counterfeit consumer products.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“The proof is in the pudding,” said Sheriff Chuck Wright told The Spartanburg Herald-Journal.[/font][/font][/size]

[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A lower standard[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
State laws typically set a higher burden than the federal government for seizing assets. Some states, such as North Carolina, prohibit asset forfeiture unless criminal charges are filed, and South Carolina requires a marginally higher burden of proof than federal laws. But police can still tap into the federal forfeiture rules. And by doing so, they may also keep a larger share of seized cash.
By working with a joint federal task force, as in Rolling Thunder, or having federal authorities adopt a seizure case after the fact, as with the Hampton County secret-compartment vehicle, the forfeiture falls under federal law. That means law enforcement officials can seize cash suspected of being drug-related even if drugs aren’t found and a criminal connection hasn’t been clearly established, although South Carolina’s laws wouldn’t allow that.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The U.S. Department of Justice adopted the Hampton County case, kept part of the money and sent the rural Sheriff’s Office a check for $1,252,731. The department bought seven new cars and trucks, and a building, among other things. The Hampton County Sheriff’s Office’s share of the seizure amounted to 29 percent of the federal forfeiture cash distributed in South Carolina for that year.
“It was a great help here,” Jarrell said. “We bought a lot of equipment and actually added a building next to the sheriff’s department.”
For some police departments in South Carolina’s small towns and rural counties, interstate highways are like popular fishing holes, but for drug money. Every car pulled over for following too closely or changing lanes without signalling is like a scratch-off lottery ticket — long odds, but with the potential for a big drug bust or a huge cash prize.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
An amazing amount of money[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
An interstate traffic stop by the Ridgeland Police Department in 2013 resulted in South Carolina’s largest federally sanctioned cash seizure for that year.
Less than 4 miles of I-95 runs through the small Jasper County town, and for the police department, that little stretch of interstate has been a cash machine. Ridgeland’s population is only about 5,000, “if you count the prison,” Police Chief James Woods said, but police there have seized more than $6 million in forfeitures since 2002. It’s been enough money to pay for the department’s vehicles, equipment and training for 15 years, since the interdiction effort began.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
As in the Hampton County case, the Ridgeland police stopped a car on I-95 for a traffic violation. The vehicle was searched after a drug-sniffing police dog alerted, Woods said, and while no drugs were found, there were large boxes full of cash in the trunk — $1.75 million.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“The driver of the vehicle had no knowledge of the money,” Woods said.[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
And so, as in the Hampton County case, the driver got a traffic ticket and the police got the money.
“That’s an amazing amount of money — more money than I’ll make in a lifetime — and this guy had it in his trunk and knew nothing about it,” said Woods. “We never heard from him again. I’m sure somebody was pissed off, somewhere.”[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The war on drugs[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The modern federal asset seizure program was created during the Reagan era as part of the same War on Drugs that sent the federal prison population soaring, and it has faced increasing criticism as the amount of money seized increased.
“While many of these forfeitures involve people who have committed crimes, startling stories continue to surface of cops and prosecutors seizing homes, money, and cars on dubious grounds and leaving innocent victims in their wake,” The Heritage Foundation said in a 2015 report that was endorsed by several conservative political action organizations. “As abuses abound, it has become clear that the system is broken and is in dire need of reform.”
[/font][/font][/size]
[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=small][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Over the past 10 years, forfeitures through the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program amounted to more that $28 billion, the agency’s Office of Inspector General reported in March. The Drug Enforcement Administration accounted for 80 percent of cash seizures, but in most cases, those forfeitures did not lead to arrests or aid investigations, the OIG report said.
The OIG reviewed a sampling of cases and concluded that about two-thirds of DEA seizures that resulted from drug interdiction operations did not advance ongoing investigations, result in new investigations, lead to arrests or lead to prosecutions.
Notably, the OIG report also found that when the financial incentive for law enforcement was reduced — when the federal government eliminated some opportunities for state and local law enforcement to claim “equitable sharing” money in late 2015 — the DEA cash seizures fell by more than half.
“The tip of the spear has just been blunted — it’s got no point now,” Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said at the time.
Hampton County suspended drug interdiction patrols until the payment program resumed.
The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice filed a response to the OIG report that criticized the data relied upon (“a small, outdated sample”) and the conclusions, calling asset forfeiture “a vitally important law enforcement tool.”
While there are plenty of incidents involving huge stashes of cash that no one will admit to knowing about, and cash demonstrably tied to drug trafficking, there have also been examples of law-abiding citizens relieved of their cash on the flimsiest of pretexts.
An oft-cited example is Matt Lee, a 31-year-old college graduate with no criminal record who was stopped while driving to California for a new job, carrying more than $2,000 cash from his parents. What happened next was reported by The Washington Post, turned into a cartoon strip in the Heritage Foundation report and referenced in a John Oliver television segment.
A sheriff’s deputy in Arizona pulled Lee over, searched his car and took his money, telling him they had concluded he was driving from Michigan to California to buy drugs. It took a lawyer and about two years to get the money back — or what remained of it after legal expenses.[/font][/font][/size]

[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]End of excerpt[/font]

[font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Just because it doesnt happen to me, should I not care?[/font]

 

[user 37446]

Heads up!
Hidden compartments in a vehicle now a CRIME:  

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment

Charlotte

[font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]Quote from that article:[/font]

[font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]"Hidden compartment laws contain scant protections for law-abiding folk, who may have perfectly legitimate reasons to conceal valuables in a secret compartment. Maybe you park in a high-crime area. Perhaps you carry large amounts of cash for your [/font][font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]church[/font][font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif] or [/font][font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]small business[/font][font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]. Or, from personal experience, maybe you go for a hike and don’t want to risk losing your keys or wallet in the wilderness, but the plastic roof of your friend’s Wrangler is easily penetrated."[/font]

[font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]End of quote[/font]

[font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif]So when and if I get my van, and it's my FT home, and I have my passport, extra cash, anything important, and I "hide" it in such a way that the casual break-in punk won't find it, now I'm a criminal...  At least in Ohio...  Amerika[/font]

 

[lenny flank]

I dunno, some of that stuff sounds like the "federal taxes are voluntary!!" websites that get people put in jail......

 

[Charlotte's Web]

...[font=Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif] now I'm a criminal...  At least in Ohio... [/font]

Folks, read the entire article.  It is NOT just Ohio.   Here's another quote from my above linked article:
"Lawmakers in Ohio are not alone in enacting or envisioning bans on unauthorized empty space. California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon have similar prohibitions on the books. Legislators in Iowa, Maryland, and New Jersey may add them this session. Similar bills have been filed in Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in recent years."
Plenty of travelers , at least part of the time, travel on interstates.  And anywhere within 100 miles of the Mexican border, you may be stopped, asked to "pull over" into a designated search area, & be detained & questioned.  This is *unconstitutional*.  Numerous youtube videos, made by citizen activists behind the wheel at these checkpoints, address this.  You will learn much by watching these youtube videos.   


Know your rights & insist on them!

Charlotte