Mark Hankins

Money In The Mattress May Not Be Safe from Unlikely Takers



Posted: Monday, October 05, 2009

by Mark Hankins
Paul's Mission Press

On December 18, 2007, the Lima News of Lima, Ohio reported that Luther Ricks Sr., a robbery victim, had $400,000 of his cash seized by the Lima Police Department and turned over to the FBI. Because marijuana was found in his home, in order to get the money back he would need to prove that he had lawfully earned it. A situation like this illustrates that keeping your money under the mattress (in this case Mr. Ricks had a wall safe, which the thieves had been unable to break into--but police with a warrant made him open it) is no solution to inability (or unwillingness) to use banks. In short, the government has gone well beyond seizing money from people's cars and from their luggage at airports and is now willing to invade people's homes. Mr. Ricks used marijuana to help him with his arthritis, however don't think that just because you don't use any illegal drugs that you're safe. Your teenager may have some drugs around, or the police may just conveniently bring some of their own that the officers will swear are yours (officers have been convicted of doing so across the country). Almost any substance in your house could also return a "false positive" when field-tested for drugs, and by the time you get out of jail your money and property could be gone.

Don't count on the officer's co-workers to curb abuses. While the vast majority of police officers are law-abiding and decent, even they overlook some of the conduct of the bad ones because they have a higher view of them than they have of "lawbreakers," or because of a favor owed, or even just out of loyalty to a brother officer or their department, which may need the money. It's called the "Blue Wall of Silence." Seized property has become a profit center for cash-strapped municipalities. Asset forfeitures formerly required a finding that the party who possessed the asset had committed a crime, but the new standard merely requires a suspicion that the asset has something to do with criminal activity. Then a court case is brought against the asset (you are not part of the picture unless you intervene to get the property back) and when it doesn't defend itself in court (and being an inanimate object, how could it?) the government owns it. In short, the government has given itself a license to steal anyone's cash, anywhere at any time for the flimsiest of reasons. Keeping cash on hand at home without evidence of its legitimate source (say an ATM receipt) is a risky proposition.
This Article has been viewed 7 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.