No sense trying to outrun

I'm not sure why that would be a good investment... I'll have to Google it.
That's like a $100K car... plastic car... to do what, issue traffic tickets? It wouldn't
be any use forcing a stop, would it?
Maybe transfer personnel and equipment... but not much.
IDK? 🤔

** From Co-Pilot:

Corvette Z-06 Police Cruiser for Law Enforcement​

The Corvette Z-06 has been repurposed by law enforcement agencies for various purposes, including community engagement and special operations. Here are some of the key uses of the Corvette Z-06 in law enforcement:
 
Ted01 said:
I'm not sure why that would be a good investment... I'll have to Google it.
That's like a $100K car... plastic car... to do what, issue traffic tickets? It wouldn't
be any use forcing a stop, would it?
Maybe transfer personnel and equipment... but not much.
IDK? 🤔

** From Co-Pilot:

Corvette Z-06 Police Cruiser for Law Enforcement​

The Corvette Z-06 has been repurposed by law enforcement agencies for various purposes, including community engagement and special operations. Here are some of the key uses of the Corvette Z-06 in law enforcement:
Click to expand...
They didn’t invest on it.
 
I saw one at the Carlisle Car Show in Carlisle, PA in August. The GM engineer was also there and available for questions about any Corvette from a C1 through a C8. I have an older model, a C5, but it’s a cream puff and a cherry when I show it.

When I sat in the 2025 Z-06, I was ready to take it out for a run, but no dice. I wish they wouldn’t have quit making standard transmissions.

SAM_0552_Original.jpeg
 
Last edited:
In Ohio, for property to be considered for asset forfeiture, the owner of that asset has to be convicted of a crime or enter intervention in lieu of conviction (ORC 2981.04). The asset is seized because it was involved or was intended to be used in the crime OR obtained by proceeds obtained by committing or taken itself during the crime (ORC 2981.02).

It didn't happen to often at my department & the only vehicles I seen seized was from drug dealers who had a lengthy history of convictions.
 
Mine won't, but there are motorcycles that will eat that Corvette for breakfast.

 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: DHH
I have heard of civil forfeiture laws in Pennsylvania and it’s used often if drugs are found in the vehicle.
The law needs to be changed. If a great deal of money is found in a car, truck, whatever, but nothing illegal is also found, there is no crime.

It seemed to me the cop in the video was looking for a way to confiscate the money. He was probably jealous or thought he could pick up a few points with his boss if he could steal some of the driver’s money and use it for the state’s benefit. I carry large sums at times, but never have been searched and I would never agree to a search without the police having probable cause. I think the mist I ever carried of my own money was $200,000. I was using the money to purchase gold and the seller would only accept cash.

I would have asked the officer if he had probable cause to detain me, which he didn’t, so he, the officer, should have said no. At that point I would have told the officer to have a good day and left.
 
That Lady in PA said:
Niether a disgrace nor unconstitutional
Click to expand...

"Wayne County, Michigan, appears to have a serious vehicle theft problem. Except in this case, the culprits are local law enforcement agencies, not civilians."

Wayne MI Townhall article. Policing for Profit- that's a disgrace.

Interesting the DOJ took down several IG reports on asset forfeiture-----hmmmm. Inquiring minds want to know what they've hidden from the citizenry.


A recent(5/2024) US Supreme Court decision in a case that related to the hearings wrt to asset forfeiture prompted Neil Gorsuch to ramble on for pages about the questionable tactics, motivation and basis in law for AF in his concurring opinion and was joined by Clarence Thomas voicing those many concerns.

These are just 2 paragraphs from Gorsuch and Thomas' concurring opinion.

"Not only do law enforcement agencies have strong financial incentives to pursue forfeitures, those incentives also appear to influence how they conduct them. Some agencies, for example, reportedly place special emphasis on seizing low-value items and relatively small amounts of cash, hopeful their actions won’t be contested because the cost of litigating to retrieve the property may cost more than the value of the property itself. See Knepper 9.

Other agencies seem to prioritize seizures they can monetize rather than those they cannot, posing for example as drug dealers rather than buyers so they can seize the buyer’s cash rather than illicit drugs that hold no value for law enforcement.See Buckeye Brief 7–8.

Delay can work to these agencies’ advantage as well. SeeBrief for Institute for Justice et al. as Amici Curiae 16.Faced with the prospect of waiting months or years to secure the return of a car or some other valuable piece of property they need to work and live, even innocent owners sometimes “settle” by “paying a fee to get it back.” Knepper 36. "


It seems like the 2 justices in this concurring opinion are tossing out the welcome sign for cases related directly to the heart of AF, in an effort to modify or eliminate AF. They basically made a road map for any lawyer w a relevant case showing the constitutional weakness of AF - essentially trolling for a case.

If these 2 titans are looking to take on AF and get on the record w a decision as to it's constitutionality - imo it's likely unconstitutional in part or in total.

USSC decision
 
Last edited:
oldman said:
I would have asked the officer if he had probable cause to detain me, which he didn’t, so he, the officer, should have said no. At that point I would have told the officer to have a good day and left.
Click to expand...
If the officer has probable cause, s/he can jolly well get a warrant.
The officer doesn't decide whether he has probable cause; the judge does. There are circumstances in which he can, but that is in a true emergency; no time to waste.
 
I’m only going to talk about the case provided in the video. It is true that when vehicles travel under the speed limit, they do draw attention to themself. I have stopped vehicles for the same reason and asked the driver if everything was alright. I can tell by talking to a driver if he was being deceptive. It was seldom I would ask if I could search their vehicle. I never went looking for trouble.

Having probable cause is a very gray area. I never confiscated anyone’s money that didn’t possess any drugs. I have found vehicles with kilos of cocaine and thousands of dollars and with weapons. In those instances, I would place the driver under arrest and have the car towed and impounded until our search team completed a search.

In the video, I doubt if I would have searched the man’s vehicle. He wasn’t acting suspicious, he was truthful and he allowed the Officer to search his vehicle. I would send him on his way.
 
oldman said:
... I would have asked the officer if he had probable cause to detain me, which he didn’t, so he, the officer, should have said no. At that point I would have told the officer to have a good day and left.
Click to expand...
When stopped by a police officer, I ask nothing. I do exactly as I'm told, no more. And no attitude. And I place both hands on the steering wheel.
I would never have "told the officer to have a good day and left". THE OFFICER IS ARMED.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top