FBI steals crime victim's money

fenix-store
L

Lightmeup

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
747
Location
Chicago
This is just wrong on so many levels.

"Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.'s house this summer may have not gotten his life savings he had in a safe, but after the FBI confiscated it he may not get it back.

Ricks has tried to get an attorney to fight for the $402,767 but he has no money. Lima Police Department officers originally took the money from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said.

"They are saying I have to prove I made it," he said.

The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.

A representative of the FBI could not be reached for comment."

Full story:
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047
 
So someone has $400k in his home along with marijuana and the assumption is that it's just the way he saves?
 
You obviously didn't read the article or are watching the Fox News version. The guy is a 63 y.o. retired steelworker, and had a small amount of marijuana to help manage pain from various diseases and conditions that afflict him. There wasn't enough there to even charge him with possession of dope.

But you're missing the point. Are you saying you think everyone who has a little grass lying around their house should have their life savings confiscated without any charges? He didn't break any laws.
 
Lightmeup said:
You obviously didn't read the article or are watching the Fox News version.
That was a low blow regarding Fox....but o'well I'm over it. :grin2:

As for the article Lightmeup, I understand what point your trying to make but at the same time it has to be looked at from the FBI's point of view or even an LEO's point of view.

Keeping that amount of money in cash is suspicious as can be in any event. Regardless of the amount of narcotics in the home it will always be brought into play when an incident like this happens.

Let's say that someone broke into my home and I had five $20.00's in the house and also two joints. The person breaks in and I shoot them and they die. Police come and see the drugs and money, will it be seized?

Yep, becuase any time there is money and drugs there are questions that need to be answered.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Regardless of the findings, the law in this country is innocent until proven quilty. Until a finding of quilt is rendered the FBI has no right to confiscate peoples property. Even then, only a court can order siezed property held without being returned. The FBI is not a court and cannot keep siezed assets from any case without a court ordering such.

To allow any law enforcement to sieze property and keep it "just because" is a violation of the constitution.
 
A lot of times people make judgements on what the media reports or wants people to hear. You can bet there's a lot of facts that we, the public, doesn't know.
 
jcompton said:
Last I checked, having marijuana in your posession is breaking a law.
Click to expand...
When was that, 1950? Most states allow possession of small amounts for personal use now. In Illinois now, you can get a ticket which costs $50 or something like that, for having a small amount. Anyway, you also are missing the point. This isn't a drug case. There were no drug charges made. They just took his money and said he has to prove he earned it legally. Last time I checked, you are supposed to be proved guilty of a crime, not have to prove you're innocent. Maybe you think it's fishy that he had that much cash in his safe. There are lots of people that don't trust banks and hide cash in their homes. Where do you draw the line if you are going to do something like this? $1000, $10000, $100000, or what? There is no law against saving cash.
 
this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The FBI doesn't set out to be asshats, they just do their job. Unfortunately after they take everything it gets locked up until someone can review the case which might never happen given staffing and prioritization issues. So some reform of that system is necessary. But it's not necessary to think that they are abusing their power or that they are purposefully being a problem. They are just unable to do in a timely manned their job for non-priority cases.

So suggest to your congressperson that this problem is not unique and that there needs to be some oversight on the non-emergency terror cases to get peoples stuff back to them!
 
raythompson said:
Regardless of the findings, the law in this country is innocent until proven quilty... To allow any law enforcement to sieze property and keep it "just because" is a violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...

You're maybe a little behind on these things. The constitution is still held up as being sweet and spiffy, and we spend a lot of time bragging on it to the neighbors, but as actual everyday policy it's been on the wane for some time now. Various aspects of it are being gnawed off one by one as they become inconvenient. You don't need to take my word for it. Just follow the news, I don't care which channel.

The aspect that is relevant to Mr. Ricks case is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
 
Last edited:
No one works their entire life to save over $400,000 dollars, and not collect the interest from a certificate of deposit. The money is shady.
 
Yes, the forfeiture laws suck badly. It allows law enforcement agencies to punish folks without due process. It does not matter if I am charged with possession with intent to distribute if the cops can shut me down by confiscating my car, home and cash. In some cases that's a more sever penalty than the judge would assess.

In this specific case, I find it telling that they never mention how much pot was in the home. Most often the confiscation is triggered when there is evidence that selling was involved. If you find a few pounds in 100 baggies, chances are that some selling is going on.

While I agree with the general principle that crime should not pay, and that proceeds from committing crimes should be seized, I am appalled by the way it's implemented. It should be AFTER the trial that the assets are seized.

Other cases of abuse of the principle:

Some cities now confiscate cars that men are driving when they are picked up for soliciting prostitutes. The fine for hiring a hooker is small, but losing a $25,000 car makes people think twice.

A nearby city has problems with kids doing crazy stunts on city streets, often endangering others. The fine for reckless driving and exhibition of speed is a thousand or two. They are confiscating the cars when they can, making the fine equivalent to tens of thousands.

A woman in another nearby city lost her home when the authorities decided that 1) she knew that her son was selling drugs out of the house and 2) he helped pay for the home.

The forfeiture laws are likely the easiest laws to abuse. They should be ruled unconstitutional.

And in closing, I found his "medicinal use" to be laughable. He cited a hip replacement as one of the reasons he needed to smoke dope, yet every one of the dozens of folks I know who have had hip replacement have had the pain go away. Oh well. Some excuse is better than none.

Daniel
 
gadget_lover said:
You never met my grandfather. He did not trust the banks nor the gov.

People who believe differently are not always crooks.

Daniel
Click to expand...

Yeah, my 98 year old grandmother who died in 2004 was that way also, but we aren't talking about 400 bucks here, we are talking about taking $20,000 a year in interest, and flushing it down the toliet.
 
Last edited:
Lightmeup said:
In Illinois now, you can get a ticket which costs $50 or something like that, for having a small amount.
Click to expand...

You get a ticket for "Breaking the Law" not because you are a law abiding citizen who law enforcement thinks should donate an extra $50 to the local government.:nana:

I understand that you're arguement stems from the confiscation of this man's life savings (or so he claims) based upon the posession of a small amount of narcotics and I agree that if the money is indeed his honest earned wages then every penny should be refunded to him (with interest!). :thumbsup:
 
CRESCENDOPOWER said:
Yeah, my 98 year old grandmother who died in 2004 was that way also, but we aren't talking about 400 bucks here, we are talking about taking $20,000 a year in interest, and flushing it down the toliet.
Click to expand...

You are attributing a level of sophistication to the average person that may not apply.

Consider the following:

There is a market for $100,000 cars.

A house sold for $65,000,000 (millions) this week in SF,

A disproportionate number of poor people gamble on things like the Lottery.

Supposedly smart bankers made billions of dollars in sub-prime loans knowing that eventually interest rates would rise and cause massive foreclosures.

Yes, putting $400K in a safe throws away the interest. It also keeps it from being invested in bad stocks, being gobbled up by transaction fees, embezzled by accountants and being attached by creditors, relatives, etc.

So while hiding your cash may or may not be smart, it's hardly criminal and people do it all the time.

Daniel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raggie33
how does ebay sellers make money?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
jtr1962
J
Chauncey Gardener
If Money Was Not A Concern . . . . . .
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
fivemega
fivemega
Swede74
Young woman steals and derails train, crashes into house.
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Monocrom
Monocrom
Lou Minescence
Money lost on flashlights
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Launch Mini
Launch Mini
D
The Money Pinch
Replies
8
Views
1K
beerwax
B

Latest posts

Top