duanedibley
Well-Known Member
Just did a google search and found various articles/posts indicating that some police dogs are trained specifically to smell cash (in addition to drugs).
DETAINED by DEA
- Thread starter Machinist
- Start date
AussiePlayer
Well-Known Member
I've also heard that authorities take a much more lenient view to any currency carried as chips, although this may not always be convenient, particularly when moving interstate.
Are any of the chips from large casino chains redeemable at their sister properties?
SystemsTrader
Well-Known Member
This is an outrage and a total violation of your rights. You refuse a search but they bring the dogs out anyway? How are using the dogs not a search? Its a total fishing expedition. I'm more than willing to bet that dog sniffing is another form of junk science anyway.
Machinist I think you said it best when you remarked about reading each situation differently. Lawyering up right away while might technically be the correct thing to do it might also escalate the situation. Then there is the concern of a dirty cop planting something in your car.
Here's a website with some info everyone should check out. Tells you what to do about searches.
http://www.flexyourrights.com/
Machinist I think you said it best when you remarked about reading each situation differently. Lawyering up right away while might technically be the correct thing to do it might also escalate the situation. Then there is the concern of a dirty cop planting something in your car.
Here's a website with some info everyone should check out. Tells you what to do about searches.
http://www.flexyourrights.com/
creeping panther
Banned
Recent outrage
A teammate I play with was very, very recently pulled over in the UP of MI by the MSP and it went much like Macho's,,except they are keeping the $17,000 because they don't believe his gambling story, even though he had all the doc's same as Macho. In MI the cops get to keep and then use the money,,,this is a very bad and nasty situation,,,as I said, same,,same as Macho,,,but totally different end!
CP
A teammate I play with was very, very recently pulled over in the UP of MI by the MSP and it went much like Macho's,,except they are keeping the $17,000 because they don't believe his gambling story, even though he had all the doc's same as Macho. In MI the cops get to keep and then use the money,,,this is a very bad and nasty situation,,,as I said, same,,same as Macho,,,but totally different end!
CP
Be VERY careful with this. Surreptitious recordings are ILLEGAL in many states, and there's even a few states where non-consentual recordings are illegal. It's an ugly law that should be long gone, but it's there. You can be arrested and punished for that offense alone.
Subtleties: I believe you can call your friend on the phone during the proceedings, to have as a witness. They can even take notes. But I'm not absolutely sure. If the phone call was going on before you were pulled over (even if you were checking voicemail) that's also apparently safe, as long as the recording was not intentional.
Driving with money is a crime.
4th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This ruling by the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court shot a hole right through the HEART of the 4th Amendmend.
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
4th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This ruling by the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court shot a hole right through the HEART of the 4th Amendmend.
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
Richard Munchkin
Well-Known Member
Listen to the interview. Bob Nersesian said that recording a private conversation is illegal in many states, but the court has ruled that a conversation with a police officer is a public conversation. In the case of security guards it's probably best to state right away, I'm recording this for your protection, just like they say on the phone.
zengrifter
Banned
A 2005 editorial I wrote in LV Tribune -
End The Tyranny of Forfeiture Law
With all due respect to Nersesian, he should have qualified this to specific states where this is legal, or where there is favorable precedent.
In several states, the contrary is true - it has been definitely found that conversations with police are NOT considered public conversations, and several have been prosecuted, and found guilty, for secretly recording the police in very similar circumstances.
For THAT matter; if it's illegal to secretly record a private conversation, how do the casinos get away with recording backroomings? I've NEVER had them TELL me up front that it was being recorded. And they can't POSSIBLY claim that the back room conversation with me is PUBLIC.
No, I believe it doesn't, but I don't know for sure. The laws are horribly unjust, but they are what they are.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
The dogs are a scam. Basically the same as a polygraph, or the "facilitated communication" hoax. They will do exactly what their handler prompts them to do, a "hit" is whatever the handler interprets to be a hit, and they exist to give the police legal cover to do illegal searches.
I agree in having no conversation with them, or at least as little as possible. If they find money and they ask you about it, I would say "I am going to/coming from the casino." One time I was questioned like this at the Canadian border, and I played the dummy game- Them: "What are you doing at the casino?" Me: "Gambling." Them: "Why aren't you going to the casino in the US?" Me: "I heard the one in Canada is better." Completely useless answers to stupid questions.
The best thing you can do is not tell the police anything, but avoid making it look like you are defiantly not telling them anything. They are going to do what they want to do anyway, but they do not have the resources to give the full treatment to everyone they stop, so you don't want to get yourself singled out for that full treatment once they do stop you. At the same time, you don't want to give them anything they can use and distort to incriminate you.
I imagine a visible camera, etc. if it exists would be enough "disclosure". I'd love to see someone challenge this in court though.
In those states where secret recordings are illegal, that alone is a criminal offense, regardless of their reasons for doing so. I doubt it applies to tribal lands, as this is state law.
Also, I believe that the restrictions apply only to audio, NOT to video, at least in some states.
(I'm not a lawyer)
Software
More importantly, for those people who would like to record police and casino encounters, I'd strongly recommend using "qik" software. It's available for most phones, and it uploads recordings live directly to the internet (even youtube). This way, if your phone is snatched or smashed, the evidence is safely online and readily available.
(Dead link: http://www.qik.com)
There are also various other programs that are often used for driving, which record continuously but only retain the recording if there's a triggered event, such as shock to the phone (accident) or you hit a button. It's excellent practice to do this. If it's openly done, I imagine it would be difficult to argue it was secretly recording.
"Dailyroads Voyager" is a popular application for this.
(Obviously have your phone plugged into your power source, since either will kill your battery very quickly).
More importantly, for those people who would like to record police and casino encounters, I'd strongly recommend using "qik" software. It's available for most phones, and it uploads recordings live directly to the internet (even youtube). This way, if your phone is snatched or smashed, the evidence is safely online and readily available.
(Dead link: http://www.qik.com)
There are also various other programs that are often used for driving, which record continuously but only retain the recording if there's a triggered event, such as shock to the phone (accident) or you hit a button. It's excellent practice to do this. If it's openly done, I imagine it would be difficult to argue it was secretly recording.
"Dailyroads Voyager" is a popular application for this.
(Obviously have your phone plugged into your power source, since either will kill your battery very quickly).
Automatic Monkey
Banned
That is the case. The theory is that something a person does out in the street is accessible for all to see, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but a normal conversation between two people on the street is not and the speaker does not expect to be heard by anyone but the listener.
In my opinion when a cop says something to a non-cop in the line of duty he is acting as an agent of the government communicating with a citizen, and he has no right to privacy in that conversation (although the civilian he is speaking to may.) But I don't think the courts have ruled on this yet.
Richard Munchkin
Well-Known Member
You can always cover yourself by saying you are recording the conversation. Now I'm sure some cops will tell you to turn the recording off, and then I guess it will be for the courts to decide whether the cops have the right to force you not to record it.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
He can't. But he, like you, has the right to remain silent. :grin:
paddywhack
Well-Known Member
That was my thought too, "Excuse me Mr. Officer, but I'm recording this conversation".
Always enjoy those solicitor phone calls where they tell me they're recording this conversation for my protection or training purposes. They never know what to say when I tell them that I too am recording the conversation, also for my protection.
Gamblor
Well-Known Member
I would have recommended handling this differently. When he asked you if were on vacation, you should have been basically entirely truthful and said "No, I am a professional gambler". If you had done this, it probably would have taken 5 minutes instead of 3 hours.
Police are looking for answers that are general, vague, evasive, off, etc.,. Also, unless your particularly good at lying, its hard to tell if your giving away "tells" or not.