We have previously discussed “policing for dollars” or “churning” where they seize cash, particularly on highways, as suspected drug money even without actually arresting or charging the drivers. It raises a huge amount of money for police departments and has been widely criticized as abusive. The latest victim of churning appears to be Charles Clarke, 24, who was on his way to take classes at the University of Central Florida. He was stopped at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Hebron, Ky. with his life savings that he was taking with him for safe keeping and to support his education. Since he could not “prove” the source of the money, agents seized the $11,000 and, despite dropping all charges against him, has thus far refused to return the money despite Clarke’s efforts.
The stop at the airport occurred after an airline employee reported that Clarke’s luggage smelled of marijuana. Police told him that he was free to go but asked to search him and his bags. Rather than walk away, Clarke consented and immediately told them that he had the cash on him. They found no drugs and he admitted that he had smoked marijuana before going to the airport.
DEA agent William Conrad, a Cincinnati-based officer with a DEA task force,and Detective Christopher Boyd said that when they grabbed the money, Clarke grabbed approached Boyd’s wrist. They responded by criminally charging him with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct — charges later dropped after they took the money.
Conrad’s affidavit insisted that the seizure was perfectly justified “based on probable cause that it was proceeds of drug trafficking or was intended to be used in an illegal transaction.” The “Mitigating factors” cited by Conrad was the purchase of a one-way ticket, inability to provide documentation noting where the money came from, a positive hit by a drug dog and the strong smell of marijuana on his checked luggage. Yet Clarke admitted to smoking pot and there was a perfectly good reason for a one-way ticket for a college student. Finally, if Conrad was asked to prove the source of the money in his wallet, I expect he would have had the same difficulty in producing receipts or a financial statement.
The United States attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky appears to have no comment on the arrest, dropped charges, or money seizure. There is a presumption of guilt until proven otherwise. It is simply thrown on the pile of $6.8 billion in cash and property has been seized through the “Equitable Sharing Program.” While only two agencies were involved in stripping Clarke of his life savings, some 11 agencies across Kentucky and Ohio claim cuts in such proceeds.
Paul
I had the same type of friends. In 1969 you could get $1,000 and these two guys started a business that supplied us all with good Mexican ‘smoking dope’, peyote, and mushrooms. They never touched any of the bad stuff. Every Spring they would rent a local hall on the outskirts of town and throw a ‘Dealer’s Ball’. One of the best live bands available, free booze which hardly anyone drank, free pot, and shopping bags full of peyote buttons and peanut butter. At three in the morning there was a line of cars creeping home along the side of the highway going ten to fifteen miles an hour under the speed limit. The cops knew but appreciated that we weren’t drunk and killing people. This was in BC which was at the time a little paradise on Earth.
The Supreme Court seems to have gone out of its way to trash 4th Amendment protections. There have been a few states that have greatly restricted this legalized theft, but if a jurisdiction is fond of shaking people down, citizens are very vulnerable.
Here are the allegations in a case out in the State of Missouri a few years back where the pigs came into a home and stole everything. The plaintiff and his lawyers settled for over a quarter of a million dollars. Lawyers names will remain unmentioned.
Here:
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for his First Amended Complaint,
states:
INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
1.
This is an action for money damages and arises pursuant to the Civil Rights Laws
of the United States of America, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) for
violations by Defendants of Plaintiff’s rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2.
Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(3)
and (4).
3.
The violations of constitutional provisions and laws were committed as a result of
the policies, customs and practices of the City of Owensville, Missouri. Plaintiff seeks an award
of attorneys fees and expert witness fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
4. Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
5. Plaintiff is a resident of Franklin County, Missouri, which is within the
geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
2
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 3 of 9 PageID #: 29
6.
The City of Owensville is a fourth class city and a municipal corporation
operating under the laws of the State of Missouri and is located within the geographical
boundaries of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
7.
Plaintiff is suing the City of Owensville for violations of the his constitutional
rights committed by police officers and agents of the City acting under color of state laws,
statutes, ordinances, policies, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Missouri and the
City of Owensville.
8.
Defendant Robert J. Rickerd is, and at all times pertinent hereto was, Chief of
Police for the City of Owensville and policy maker for the City for all policing activities during
all times mentioned herein and was acting under color of law and regulations as a police officer
and agent of the City when he and other officers in concert with Defendant Lang violated the
constitutional rights of the Plaintiff as set forth herein.
9.
Defendant Ronald Dean Lang is a resident of Gasconade County, Missouri which
is within the geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern District. He is
sued individually for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights done under color of law in
conjunction with the City of Owensville and the other Defendants.
10.
Defendant Scott Griffin was, on and around July 1, 2006, a police officer and
agent of the City of Owensville, and at all times mentioned herein was acting under color of law.
He is a resident of Gasconade County, Missouri, which is within the geographical boundaries of
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, and is sued individually for his actions in
violating the rights of Plaintiff as herein alleged.
11.
Defendant Betty Post Sickendick was, on and around July 1, 2006, a police officer
and agent of the City of Owensville, and at all times mentioned herein was acting under color of
3
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 4 of 9 PageID #: 30
law. She is a resident of Gasconade County, Missouri, which is within the geographical
boundaries of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, and is sued individually for her
actions in violating Plaintiff’s rights as herein alleged.
11.
Defendant Jessica Hoyt was, on and around July 1, 2006, a police officer and
agent of the City of Owensville, and at all times mentioned herein was acting under color of law.
She is a resident of Gasconade County, Missouri, which is within the geographical boundaries of
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, and is sued individually for her actions in
violating Plaintiff’s rights as herein alleged.
12.
Defendant Billy Coello was, on and around July 1, 2006, a police officer and
agent of the City of Owensville, and at all times mentioned herein was acting under color of law.
He is a resident of Gasconade County, Missouri, which is within the geographical boundaries of
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, and is sued individually for his actions in
violating Plaintiff’s rights as herein alleged.
Count I: Civil Rights Violations
13.
Plaintiff restates, realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1
through 12 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
Facts
14.
On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant Lang entered a lease agreement
whereby Plaintiff rented a business premise known and numbered as 509-B West Highway 28,
Owensville, Missouri; thereafter, and at all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was in lawful
4
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 5 of 9 PageID #: 31
possession of such leasehold premise and conducted an automobile repair business at that
location.
15.
On that date, Defendant Lang was the owner of a business styled the Lazy Bug,
L.L.C. and signatory to the above-described lease between Plaintiff and Lazy Bug, L.L.C. for
said premises.
16.
On or around June 30, 2006 or July 1, 2006, Scott Griffin, Ronald Dean Lang,
Jessica Hoyt, Betty Post Sickendick and Billy Coello, operating at the direction of Chief Robert
Rickerd, went to Plaintiff’s said place of business without Plaintiff’s consent, without Plaintiff’s
presence, without warrant, and without probable cause and unlawfully broke into and entered the
premises, searched the premises, and seized and removed all of Plaintiff’s personal property
therein, including motor vehicles, trailers, tool chests, tools, repair materials, and auto parts, and
locked Plaintiff out of his premises, thus depriving Plaintiff of his property and livelihood
without due process of law and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
17.
All of the aforesaid acts were in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights secured by:
a)
The Fourth Amendment, to be secure in his person, premises, papers,
property, and effects and against intrusions, and to be free from unreasonable search and
seizure and loss of liberty and property, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment;
b)
The Fifth Amendment, to be free from compelled statements against
himself and to be free from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment;
5
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 6 of 9 PageID #: 32
c)
The Ninth Amendment, to privacy in his premises and personal and family
relationships, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment; and
d)
The Fourteenth Amendment, to due process of law, equal protection of the
law, and privileges and immunities of the law, including the rights to life, liberty,
property, and privacy.
18.
The aforesaid constitutional rights have been clearly established and well-settled
since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789 and the ratification of the
Fourteenth Amendment on July 28, 1868, and are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil
Rights Act of 1871) and under Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
19.
All of Defendants’ aforesaid acts and omissions were done without warrant,
judicial process, or probable cause, and all such conduct violated clearly established
constitutional rights which a reasonable police officer would know to be clearly established.
20.
Defendants’ aforesaid acts and omissions, separately and taken together, were
impermissible, egregious, conscience-shocking, and a violation of Plaintiff’s aforesaid rights,
and a reasonable police officer would have known the same.
21.
Defendants’ acts and omissions were done under the direction and on behalf of
the Defendant City of Owensville as herein alleged, and all Defendants in fact knew it to be
illegal, impermissible, egregious, conscience-shocking and violative of Plaintiff’s rights.
22.
Defendants acted pursuant to a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of the aforesaid
civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985(3). In particular, the individual
defendants and the City of Owensville conspired, and in concert with each other in that
conspiracy, had an explicit meeting of the minds to conduct themselves as aforesaid and to
deprive Plaintiff of his property interests and the equal protection and immunities of the laws
6
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 7 of 9 PageID #: 33
secured by the constitutional provisions alleged above. These defendants further conspired to
cover up their conduct.
23.
The City of Owensville is liable for the conduct of its agents and officers, for the
following reasons:
a)
Chief of Police Robert J. Rickerd was the policy maker for the City of
Owensville;
b)
The City of Owensville conducted police activities under color of law on
behalf of the City of Owensville, including the powers of arrest, search, seizure, detention
and questioning in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment;
c)
It was the custom and policy of the City of Owensville to fail to properly
hire, train, supervise or discipline its police officers;
d)
The City’s intentional conduct amounts to a deliberate indifference to the
rights of plaintiffs and the citizens of the United States;
e)
Each individual assisted each other in performing the various actions
described herein and lent to each other and to the City of Owensville, their physical
presence, support and the authority of their office; and
f)
A pattern and practice in violation of the constitutional rights alleged
above was condoned, tolerated and the custom of the City, thus subjecting the
municipality of the City of Owensville to liability under the doctrine of Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
24.
Each Defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the injury and damage
Plaintiff suffered.
7
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 8 of 9 PageID #: 34
25.
Plaintiff suffered damages in humiliation, reputation, loss and invasion of privacy,
and property damage, and Plaintiff requests an amount of money damages for compensatory
damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, that is fair and reasonable, to be
determined by the jury.
26.
Defendants’ conduct was outrageous because of Defendants’ evil motive or
reckless indifference to the rights of others, so as to justify an award of punitive damages against
all Defendants, jointly and severally, for an amount of One Million Dollars, to be determined by
the jury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment in his favor and against Defendants, and
requests this Court to enter the following relief:
A. Convene a trial by jury;
B. Enter a judgment for compensatory damages for Plaintiff and against all
Defendants jointly and severally in an amount that is fair and reasonable;
C.
Enter a judgment for punitive damages for Plaintiff against all Defendants jointly
and severally in the amount of One Million Dollars;
D.
Award Plaintiff his costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988; and
E.
For such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.
8
Case: 4:10-cv-00793-CAS Doc. #: 2 Filed: 05/04/10 Page: 9 of 9 PageID #: 35
Respectfully submitted,
Never mind 🙂
“I” I’m a slow learner. “I” “b” very slow “b”
Takes a bow
Ta Dah! LOL
😀
Thank you, ladies.
Eureka!
Argh! Let’s try this again.
italics
“i Italics /i”
Gahhhhh,
here http://pd.clcillinois.edu/docs/basic_html.pdf
Heck, you can’t hard print the darn things!!!
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Karen,
These are the thingies the letters go inside of “”.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well that didn’t work…lets try this again use this symbol with the letter i inside and the same with /i at the end of the phrase you want to be italics.
Karen
To make italics….at the beginning of the phrase use with the letter i inside. To close the tag you use with /i inside. substitute the letter b for bold.
Squeeky – Patrick O’Brian was a brilliant writer. I had zero interest in 18th and 19th century British naval warfare, but he had me using “weather gauge” and “copper bottomed” in a sentence. That was a feat. He died halfway into writing the last book in the series. His publisher made the rare decision not to have the work finished, because they said it would have taken a committee to collect the same level of information, and no great book was ever written by committee. His intellect and body of knowledge were orders of magnitude above my own. 🙂
OK, can someone spell out for me the instructions on how to bold and italicize? All I can find online is how to manage your own Word Press blog, rather than format comments. I am feeling uncool.
@KarenS
True. I was afraid that “Letters of Marque” reference would be too esoteric, but I am glad to see that it wasn’t! There are some really smart people here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ooopppps Didn’t mean to bold all that text. Sorry.