You may think
your biggest threat when carrying any amount of cash over $1000
is a thief or armed robber, but you’d be wrong.
Your most immediate
concern is not being robbed by a criminal, but rather, by the very
people who are supposed to serve and protect the public.
As one New
Jersey man found out when he was on his way to pay for a car he
purchased on Ebay, a new heavy handed trend called “policing
for profit” is empowering law enforcement officers to ignore
fundamental Constitutional safeguards against warrant-less searches.
[Video report
follows excerpts]
George Reby
was driving down Interstate 40, heading west through Putnam County,
when he was stopped for speeding.
A Monterey
police officer wanted to know if he was carrying any large amounts
of cash.
“I said,
‘Around $20,000,’” he recalled. “Then,
at the point, he said, ‘Do you mind if I search your vehicle?’
I said, ‘No, I don’t mind.’ I certainly didn’t
feel I was doing anything wrong. It was my money.”
That’s
when Officer Larry Bates confiscated the cash based on his suspicion
that it was drug money.
…
Bates said
the amount of money and the way it was packed gave him reason
to be suspicious.
“The
safest place to put your money if it’s legitimate is in a
bank account,” he explained. “He stated he had two.
I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it’s
safer.”
“But
it’s not illegal to carry cash,” we noted.
“No,
it’s not illegal to carry cash,” Bates said. “Again,
it’s what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what
it is being utilized for.”
NewsChannel
5 Investigates noted, “But you had no proof that money
was being used for drug trafficking, correct? No proof?”
“And
he couldn’t prove it was legitimate,” Bates insisted.
…
In fact,
Reby had proof on his computer. [The ebay evidence he showed
the officer was not sufficient]
“On
the street, a thousand-dollar bundle could approximately buy two
ounces of cocaine,” Bates told NewsChannel 5 Investigates.
“Or
the money could have been used to buy a car,” we observed.
“It’s
possible,” he admitted.
NewsChannel
5 Investigates asked Bates if Reby had told him that he was
trying to buy a car?
“He
did,” the officer acknowledged.
“But
you did not include that in your report,” we noted.
“If
it’s not in there, I didn’t put it in there.”
So why
did he leave that out?
“I
don’t know,” the officer said.
Source:
News Channel 5
We could venture
a guess why Officer Bates failed to include this absolutely critical
piece of evidence in his report… Maybe because if Mr. Reby
can’t afford an attorney to prove his innocence(!) then the
State of Tennessee, specifically Mr. Bates’ police department,
gets to keep the money.
Tennessee
law legitimizes what amounts to armed robbery by police officers.
Had Mr. Reby refused to give up his money and fought his attacker
as any reasonable person might when threatened, he would no doubt
have been charged with a host of crimes or worse.
This is a clear
cut Constitutional issue, but the police, government and judicial
system will refute any such claims, or completely ignore them, showing
once again that the protections laid out by the Constitution of
the United States of America mean absolutely nothing to the sycophants
and thieves who we have entrusted with preserving our most dearly
held principles.
