California Sheriff Free to Rob Armored Cars Money of Legal Marijuana Businesses(reason.com)
reason.com
California Sheriff Free to Rob Armored Cars Money of Legal Marijuana Businesses
https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-free-to-rob-armored-cars-carrying-money-from-state-licensed-marijuana-businesses/
6 comments
One of the core tenants of our government is checks and balances. Why is there no panel of citizens with enough power to keep the police in check? I feel like if average citizens had the opportunity to effect the careers of policemen and women, then they would behave much better.
The policeman in question in a sheriff in California. That is an elected position, so about as directly answerable to the average citizen as it gets.
Why not just seize all cash from all armored cars regardless of what kind of business it is? I don't see the distinction from seizing the cash from a LEGAL marijuana business versus seizing it from Walmart. What law is being broken by the marijuana business or the cash-movers?
This will happen as long as the ruling class is prevented from taking their cut of the pie due to it still being illegal at the federal level.
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.
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.
San Bernardino has been broke for years. They are paying most of the pensions for retired police so it's not a surprise they are pulling stuff like this. I guess they have the best police pension so most So. Cal. officers transfer there before retiring. Meanwhile, their city infrastructure looks like Steven King's "The Stand."
There are no completely legal marijuana businesses in the US. All of them are in violation of federal law. This is why the money was transferred to a federal agency for the actual asset forfeiture.
Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
Gonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Au contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
If a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US.
It's very much illegal at the federal level.
It's very much illegal at the federal level.
Under a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
I'm all for that, but that means a lot of other federal laws and regulations getting wiped from the books.
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.
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.
Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf?
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.
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.
> Why is the Sheriff doing it on the federal agency's behalf?
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.
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.
The incentive might be the seized property, but the purpose is to disrupt the drug trade in cases where prosecution would be difficult or impossible.
Which it is technically accomplishing.
Which it is technically accomplishing.
The key is to have dummy trucks with no money driving staggered schedules. That will keep them occupied.
Real talk though those audio recordings of the police commenting that “that’s all they got” has no place in this country.
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 has to be ended. It is completely infused with perverse incentive. It is a travesty.
If the money went anywhere except into the police coffers, the practice would end overnight.
The key is to mortally wound a few of these robbers, to discourage the theft.
> "Empyreal bears the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that it has strictly complied with state medical marijuana laws," Holcomb writes.
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.
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.
This wasn't a criminal case or even a case asking for return of the funds. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. It was a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent future action by the sheriff's office. The burden of proof for a TRO always falls on the party requesting the TRO.
This is explicitly true, but also morally wrong. There is absolutely no reason the government should be able to take something from you, and then make you prove that they shouldn't have done so.
I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich.
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.
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.
Yea- agree with it or not, technically this is Civil Asset Forfeiture working as intended (Ie not one of the many many abuses of it.):
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.
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.
But that's not how the judge is quoted in the article. If it's really about the TRO, then the proof should be about whether the activities to be restrained actually happened - seems like that's not up for debate.
Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.
Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.
Almost all of the SoCal police departments (LAPD, LASD, San Bernardino Sheriffs) are out of control, with massive, sprawling budgets (the city of Los Angeles gives more money to police than any other category and just added more money for the next year after their "defunding" in 2020) and a complete lack of oversight.
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.
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.
I feel like a much needed accountability reset of police departments across the country got sidelined, after the BLM protests(George Floyd) that erupted turned into a call for abolishing them.
I don't want to abolish them, and would be willing to fund them even more with better trainings in exchange for better accountability. The subsequent actions would've even fulfilled some of the asks of the protestors. The ideological asks kinda ruined it.
As a counterpoint, last time I did a comparison it looked like LAPD had a drastically smaller budget (both per capita and per square mile) than any large other city. NYPD's budget is well over double per capita.
https://lasdgangs.knock-la.com/
This may be relevant if you haven't already seen it.
This may be relevant if you haven't already seen it.
^^^^^^ yes!
The police are only allowed to do what the law let's them.
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
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
This is incorrect, it is an appeal to false authority, the "Nuremberg" defense.
If you, as an individual, take by force the property of a person that has not demonstrably harmed another, you are a thief.
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".
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".
Fighting criminals and killing evil people is considered moral.
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.
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.
>Many Indian people consider it immoral to eat a cow but that's moral in America.
Technically, but that's an Hindu belief not a Indian belief
Technically, but that's an Hindu belief not a Indian belief
X group views Y practice as immoral.
The police guilds are lobbyists too. They fight tooth and nail to keep chokeholds, qualified immunity, extremely high bars for prosecution etc. And when they're not happy, they strike, which puts people in danger.
Yep! The police unions hold massive sway over cities, media (especially local media) and politicians by threatening to simply stop enforcing laws if they don't get their way. They can then use the media and scare tactics to drive up "crime is out of control" narratives (see: 500 stories about shoplifting, "organized robberies" sweeping cities, etc), argue they need more funding by creating work stoppages and then wait for public opinion to come back around to their side.
Agree! But shouldn't they be able to lobby for themselves? Shouldn't the responsibility rest in the hands of the person with the power who is being lobbied to resist or to be fair?
Huh, the Police in the US are allowed to strike?
Must admit, that makes me realise some of the stereotypes I hold about American attitudes to unionism are in need of revision.
Must admit, that makes me realise some of the stereotypes I hold about American attitudes to unionism are in need of revision.
In most jurisdictions police can't literally strike. But it's tough to prevent them from calling in sick, or force them to actually work when out on patrol.
> no knock warrants are not the police's fault.
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?
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?
There's a small amount of people in every single profession and walk of life who break the law. I mean look at priests.
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.
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.
Correct, yes, politicians who have contributed to the militarization of US policing are also to blame, along with the massive military industrial complex and its lobbying arms in Washington. This country has been on a downward spiral since 9/11 to arm our police forces as if they're elite counter-terrorism units.
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."
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."
When the tools of lying, murdering and stealing are available to the police, they will use them.
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.