Possible DEA Mugging of Professional Poker Player

Over at the poker forum Two Plus Two, pro poker player David Peat writes that he was essentially mugged by DEA agents at an airport in Toledo, Ohio Detroit, Michigan.

According to Peat, he and his girlfriend had originally planned to fly back to Las Vegas together after visiting her family. But after purchasing their tickets, Peat decided to fly to L.A. to play in a poker game. He bought a last minute, first-class ticket, and paid in cash.  That apparently was enough to set off red flags.

Peat says he was accosted by several DEA agents, who asked him questions about who he was and where he was going. He told them he was a poker player, and had $15,000 in cash in his pocket. They first let him go, but then chased him down, and told him he'd need to come with them for questioning. Peat says the agents then confiscated all of his money, as well as his $50,000 Rolex watch. He says they gave him a receipt, and told him to expect more information in the mail.

In a separate post, Peat concedes he had a few marijuana possession charges, but the most recent was more than eight years ago. He wasn't arrested, and the agents didn't tell him why they were taking his money. The reason for seizing it seems to be little more than he was traveling with a large amount of cash.

If Peat's account of the incident is accurate, it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented.

CORRECTION: I spoke with Peat tonight. He was staying in Toledo, but he flew out of Detroit. More to come.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    People really need to start standing up to these agents when they come after them. If he had just said you'll have to arrest me and on what charges, what could the DEA agents legally do? He wasn't breaking any laws. They could make something up but then it would get thrown out pretty quickly sans evidence.

  • Naga Sadow||

    This is terrible but . . . it happened to a poker player. In my profession, poker players are death for any bar they decide to sit at. High maintenance, arrogant, cheap, worthless bastards! Not that there is anything wrong with that, just tryin' to cheer myself up before I head to class again.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Nick,

    Refer to Kwais story of a week ago. Bad idea.

  • ||

    as well as his $50,000 Rolex watch

    The agents realized that they could shake him down because he's clearly an idiot.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Epi,

    That sums up most poker players.

  • Elemenope||

    People really need to start standing up to these agents when they come after them.

    Do you really want everyone who agrees with us to be dead or in prison?

    I don't know, but I'm gonna go ahead and guess that that would be unhelpful.

  • SIV||

  • ||

    LMNOP, I don't think he was talking about exchanging bullets. Just calmly refuse to hand over the cash and watch, and see what happens next.

    I'm curious to know how the DEA agents took possession of the cash -- did they take it directly from his pocket, or did he hand it to them when instructed to do so? The first is massively illegal if he wasn't under arrest.

  • ||

    That sums up most poker players.

    I mean...seriously. A Rolex? Does he drive a Cadillac too? And wear Givenchy?

  • ||

    Naga and LMNOP make good points. I'm just mad. Today's reason articles are really pissing me off.

    Man, if Ryan Frederick doesn't get off...

  • ||

    Also note we're getting this story from a guy posting about himself on an Internet forum. Let's be a bit skeptical about the details until the other side of the story comes out (if there even is a story).

  • ||

    they take me to corner of the bagage claim and ask me to empty pockets and take off jewelry. i do. Now im starting to think i am getting robbed so i yell for someone to call the police they come over and say im screwed and theese guys are dea. 20 min later the dea guys tell me here is a reciept . you will get some thing in mail. they didnt count my money just bagged it, they just put watch on resiept , its a 50k rolex, and the reciept has no contact information on it at all.



    Wait -- so he had no idea who these guys were and he was emptying his pockets for them? If he's telling the truth it's hard to believe he made it out of his baby crib.

  • ||

    Again, yet another example of the monopolization of the administration of justice (MOTAOJ) rearing its ugly head. The solution lies not in "reforming" the beast. That dog won't hunt. Rather, the solution lies in slaying the sucker.

  • ||

    He will absolutely never see this money again - regardless if he gets charged.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So when do they start confiscating the credit cards from our wallets and maxing out the cash advance?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I mean, really. Who but a big time drug dealer would walk around with a high-limit Visa card in his pocket?

  • ||

    If there was no MOTAOJ, the chances of this stuff happening would be far less. There would be no DEA-particularly after some who purported to exercise such authority were slain.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I mean...seriously. A Rolex? Does he drive a Cadillac too? And wear Givenchy?

    I guess it's a good thing that the fashion police caught up with him then.

  • Elemenope||

    If there was no MOTAOJ, the chances of this stuff happening would be far less.

    How do you know? Have we ever had such a system in the modern world?

    There would be no DEA-particularly after some who purported to exercise such authority were slain.

    Are you kidding? You think that DEA agents getting shot will *reduce* their zeal?

  • ||

    I guess it's a good thing that the fashion police caught up with him then.

    If only. Have you seen the suits federal agents wear? They make Elwood Blues look like Karl Lagerfeld.

  • SpongePaul||

    If i were him i woulda told em to shove it up thier asses and demanded return or that i be charges, and then i would sue and own their asses. ans i am anti-sue, but sometimes you have to make the point against corrupt entities

  • thoreau||

    Wait -- so he had no idea who these guys were and he was emptying his pockets for them? If he's telling the truth it's hard to believe he made it out of his baby crib.

    I get your point, but anybody who reads Radley Balko knows that the cops just expect you to know they're cops. If masked men surprise you in the middle of the night you're supposed to assume that they're cops and comply. If some guys back you into a corner, identify themselves as police, and demand that you hand something to them, failure to hand it to them is an invitation to be tased or worse.

  • Jordan||

    It seems to me that the correct thing to do would have been to ask them if he was under arrest, and if they said no, to tell them that you're not going anywhere or answering any questions. Or is the Constitution suspended at airports. Any lawyers want to way in on this?

  • Happy Jack||

    essentially mugged by DEA agents at an airport in Toledo, Ohio.

    A later comment says he was in Detroit. Maybe the DEA agents were Lions season ticket holders.

  • ||

    Maybe we can start a "Know your rights" campaign. If people knew that they don't just have to do what they're told when they've done nothing wrong, something like this could be avoided.

    I will say, though, this poker player is particularly stupid, so I have considerably less sympathy for him that I do for Kwais who was trying to do the right thing at JFK. Just goes to show it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

  • ||

    since airports have lots of planes the constitution obviously doesnt apply

    terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Again, this is terrible but . . . I bet that idiot tried to "bluff" the damn agents with a cool, unemotional response. Bad move. Again, I hate poker players and am just using this poor sap as quick mood upper.

    No Epi. I'm not gonna snort Ritalin for a better effect. LOL!

  • Nephilium||

    Nick:

    You mean something like this?

    Nephilium

  • Elemenope||

    Maybe we can start a "Know your rights" campaign. If people knew that they don't just have to do what they're told when they've done nothing wrong, something like this could be avoided.

    I used to believe that.

  • The Owners Manual||

    "Peat concedes he had a few marijuana possession charges, but the most was more than eight years ago. " Most? You kidding me?? Most!!1?! LOL

  • Naga Sadow||

    Everyone's response to police should be something similiar to mine when being questioned or arrested:

    1. Yes sir.
    2. No sir.

    Any other response is not acceptable.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Oh, and no details if asked. Just "yes sir" or "no sir" are sufficient.

  • Elemenope||

    Everyone's response to police should be something similiar to mine when being questioned or arrested:

    1. Yes sir.
    2. No sir.

    Any other response is not acceptable.
    [...]
    Oh, and no details if asked. Just "yes sir" or "no sir" are sufficient.


    I know a kid who got thrown down a flight of stairs for that.

  • Paul||

    Now does everyone see why an income tax is immoral, and why a consumption (nat'l sales tax) is superior alternative?

    I don't care if the government knows I bought a waffle iron at William Sonoma. But I do care if the government feels it needs to know how I came to buy it.

    When the government can seize cash from you merely because how you came to acquire it is questionable or vague, you will eventually slip down the slope to these situations.

    Sorry for the thread jack. But I feel very strongly about this.

  • ||

    No Epi. I'm not gonna snort Ritalin for a better effect. LOL!

    Your loss.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Elemenope,

    Damn. You sure he didn't fuck up the wording?

  • Elemenope||

    Damn. You sure he didn't fuck up the wording?

    Pretty sure. Then again, after his in-flight experience, I'm pretty sure he deviated a little from the script.

  • ||

    Ah yes. Cops stealing cash from honest citizens.

    I will remember this one till the day I die.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Word? Fuck-tastic! I suppose I'm gonna have to add a corollary to my advice.

    If not in front of a camera . . . rat out the other guy in a heart beat.

  • oat willie||

    "Everyone's response to police should be something similiar to mine when being questioned or arrested:

    1. Yes sir.
    2. No sir.
    3. I want to talk to an attorney.
    Any other response(s) is are not acceptable."


    There, FIFY.

  • ||

    Everyone's response to police should be something similiar to mine when being questioned or arrested:

    1. Yes sir.
    2. No sir.

    Any other response is not acceptable.


    Wrong. Except for trying to avoid citations during traffic stops the responses are -

    My name is _____________.
    I live at _______________.
    I wish to talk to an attorney.

  • ||

    I went to law school and can confirm that these are the correct three statements to give police. One of the guest speakers in my ConLaw class was a federal agent, and he told the class that even if the police want to question you as just a witness to a crime, you should never do so without an attorney present.

  • ||

    J sub D, why are you telling the cop your name and where you live? Can't you just say "I wish to talk to an attorney" and be done?

  • ||

    The SCOTUS ruled a couple of years ago that laws requiring citizens to truthfully answer police requests for name and address are constitutional. Can't remember the case title, though.

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    We now have the MOTAOJ. Under said regime, we have Ryan Frederick multiplied hundreds of thousands of times, each and every year in this socialist cess pool. We have literally a million or more people behind bars on drug raps alone. We have thousands of drug raids each and every year resulting in death, mayhem and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage done to the properties raided. We have a spectacular misallocation of resources made possible by the MOTAOJ. All of the foregoing is reality-not speculation.

    The elimination of the MOTAOJ is frightening to some, no doubt. However, when pressed for empirical data on the horrors of eliminating the MOTAOJ, the timid types can only speculate.

  • Elemenope||

    J sub D, why are you telling the cop your name and where you live? Can't you just say "I wish to talk to an attorney" and be done?

    Because due to the stinking pile of shit that is Terry police are allowed to inquire and are entitled a veridical response to:

    1. Who you are
    2. Where you are going
    3. Where you reside

    Though they cannot compel you to produce ID unless you are driving a car, in which case they can ask for a driver's license.

  • Elemenope||

    libertymike --

    Nobody here is arguing whether the current situation is bad.

    What I'm asking is how you know your alternative will be better.

  • ||

    Don't forget the thousands killed or wounded each year as a direct and prximate result of the WoD.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, here's the story on that. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada is the title.

  • Elemenope||

    The SCOTUS ruled a couple of years ago that laws requiring citizens to truthfully answer police requests for name and address are constitutional. Can't remember the case title, though.

    I think you're thinking of Hiibel v. Nevada. It was a reinforcement of Terry v. Ohio.

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Come and follow me and you shall see.

  • ||

    The elimination of the MOTAOJ is frightening to some, no doubt. However, when pressed for empirical data on the horrors of eliminating the MOTAOJ, the timid types can only speculate.

    You're right -- I've never been to Somalia. Perhaps you'd like to visit there to get a taste of anarchic paradise and report back to us (if you don't decide to move there permanently).

  • Elemenope||

    Come and follow me and you shall see.

    LOL! Uh, no. You *Explain*, and I will decide whether I am convinced.

  • ||

    libertymike --

    You might want to zip up. Your Messiah complex is showing again.

  • Paul||

    Ah yes. Cops stealing cash from honest citizens.

    The precedent's already there. If you can't PROVE how you came to acquire it, the government can assert itself over the money.

    See U.S. vs. $10,000 in cash. All of this stems from the government's perceived right to scrutinize streams of income.

  • Zeb||

    "1. Yes sir.
    2. No sir."

    I'm not calling anyone "sir" for any reason.

  • Paul||

    Perhaps you'd like to visit there to get a taste of anarchic paradise and report back to us

    At least they have free access to healthcare.

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Honesty requires me to respond that I don't know for sure that matters would be better. However, I can employ common sense, history, human nature and reason to the question and tell you that I am confident that matters would be better.

  • ||

    Tulpa-

    Can't a messiah have a little fun?

  • ||

    Paul-

    Not so fast. Free health care don't sound much like paradise to me.

  • ||

    Not until the messiah answers my question about Somalia.

  • Elemenope||

    Honesty requires me to respond that I don't know for sure that matters would be better. However, I can employ common sense, history, human nature and reason to the question and tell you that I am confident that matters would be better.

    I'm not asking for certainty. I'm asking *why* you *think* it would be better. Make a case.

  • ||

    I think some, like TAO last night, conflate the absence of the MOTAOJ with anarchy. There can be competing dispensers of justice without anarchy. I have not checked lately, but I don't recall anarchy being defined as the absence of the MOTAOJ. Quite literally, it means "without rulers". That is not the same thing as the absence of the MOTAOJ.

  • ||

    J sub D, why are you telling the cop your name and where you live? Can't you just say "I wish to talk to an attorney" and be done?

    The SCOTUS has ruled that cops are legally allowed to ask for your identity and you are obligated to give it. Carrying ID is not necessary, but you have to identify yourself when asked.

    I usually provide links but am TLTG this afternoon. You'll have to trust me on this one.

  • Paul||

    Not so fast. Free health care don't sound much like paradise to me.

    Sorry, liberty, that seemed like the proper talking-point response. At least that's the one libertarians get from progressives whenever we rag on one of the tin-pot communist countries (take your pick) around the world.

  • Paul||

    J sub is correct. There was a Terry stop situation that Reason covered heavily a couple of years ago. The SCOTUS ruling blew out your right to refuse a "papers please" request.

    We're Europe. Get over it.

  • ||

    I see others who are not TLTG beat me to it.

    Thanx.

  • ||

    libertymike, the etymology of the term does not concern me at this time. Anarchy is generally understood as the lack of a government. Are you claiming that it is possible to have a government without a monopoly of initiation of force?

  • Jordan||

    It seems to me that the correct thing to do would have been to ask them if he was under arrest, and if they said no, to tell them that you're not going anywhere or answering any questions. Or is the Constitution suspended at airports. Any lawyers want to way in on this?



    Christ, that was incomprehensible. Let's try again.

    It seems to me that the correct thing to do would have been to ask them if he was under arrest, and if they said no, to tell them that he's not going anywhere or answering any questions. Or is the Constitution suspended at airports? Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?

  • Elemenope||

    J sub is correct. There was a Terry stop situation that Reason covered heavily a couple of years ago. The SCOTUS ruling blew out your right to refuse a "papers please" request.

    And just to rub it in for all you conservative judge-fluffers who hang hereabouts, just who were the dissenters in Hiibel?

  • Elemenope||

    Are you claiming that it is possible to have a government without a monopoly of initiation of force?

    Anti-Weberian definitions of the state are always amusing and sometimes even interesting.

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Okay. Let's take the WoD and the DEA. If there was competition in the dispensing of justice, I do not think that there would be a WoD and a DEA.

    First, under a more competitive regime, no one outfit would have the authoirty to create statist legislation AND have the ability to tax and enforce the same. The subscribers, i.e., the people who paid for the dispensing of justice, given an opportunity to shop and compare, would, IMO, choose not to pay for a WoD. Why would they willingly pay a whole lot more for something that they do not need when they have the choice to avoid paying for statist crap that they are forced to pay for now?

    Look at the recent Massachuseets ballot question concerning the decriminalization of MJ. It passed by a 2 to 1 margin. To me, that is evidence in support of my proposition that folks, if given a chance to shop and compare, would not be willing to pay for a WoD.

    Second, given the empirical evidence we have, many people who are come ci, come ca on the issue, IMO, would conclude that the benefit of not having to shell out for statist projects far outweighs whatever costs there might be in having a few more people openly and notoriously consuming drugs. They would reason that it might be better to have a few more stoned than shot and warehoused.

  • robc||

    Are you claiming that it is possible to have a government without a monopoly of initiation of force?

    a monopoly isnt necessary. Our government doesnt have a monopoly on it now, and yet they continue to exist.

  • ||

    Tulpa-

    Yes.

  • Paul||

    Or is the Constitution suspended at airports.

    Uhm, You're kidding, right Jordan. The constitution has been suspended at Airports as long as I can remember. And I'm not what most people refer to as 'young'.

    And just to rub it in for all you conservative judge-fluffers who hang hereabouts, just who were the dissenters in Hiibel?

    The judges who were in the majority on Kelo?

    Now who's a judge fluffer?

  • Paul||

    Our government doesnt have a monopoly on it now, and yet they continue to exist.

    They're working on that, robc.

    See the case of U.S. vs. 2nd Amendment.

    Longest trial in U.S. history.

  • Elemenope||

    libertymike --

    I think the primary problem I'm having with the whole thing is that justice is by definition what happens to *other people*. Put another way, people want the protection of an armed force so that others cannot harm them, physically or financially.

    The fundamental problem is that what the person wanting protection wants is diametrically opposed to what the other actor in the situation wants (namely, to act).

    So, if you hire a guy with a gun, or a firm of such guys, because you prefer their approach to criminal justice, in what way should *your* preference be binding on me, a person who putatively must act in the same society as you?

  • Elemenope||

    The judges who were in the majority on Kelo?

    Now who's a judge fluffer?


    I have no love for the liberal judges who voted for Kelo. My point is, lots of people round these parts profess love for those conservative judges who voted for Hiibel, and insist strenuously that--no, really!--the conservative judges are better on civil liberties than the liberal ones.

  • ||

    I don't how many of you guys are Bond fans, but there is a scene from my favorite Bond film, For Your Eyes Only, where Roger Moore flings some weapons guidance system article (if my memory is correct, it was called the ATAX system in the movie) from the top of some mountain in Greece as Walter Gotell (he usually played the role of a Soviet heavy) watches. Roger Moore said, "that's detente comrade. You don't have it and I don't have it."

    Apply that concept to the dispensing of justice and I think that we would have a better world.

  • ||

    I think the appropriate template for interactions with a police officer, undercover
    agent, or any stranger, when on foot is something like this. You are approached:
    Stranger: "Can I talk to you for a moment?"
    You: "No"
    and keep walking. But they persist, and identifiy themselves as police or agents.
    They then say something along the lines of:
    Stranger: "Hold on. I need to talk to you"
    You: "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
    At this point, if they say you are free to go, keep on walking. Interaction over.
    Alternatively, they can ask for your name (and maybe address, depending on
    the state), which you must supply. But after that, you should repeat:
    You: "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" and
    You: "I don't consent to any searches"
    Again, if they say you are free to go, keep on walking. Interaction over.
    On the other hand, if they say they are detaining you, they must have reasonable
    suspicion for a Terry stop. They can pat you down for obvious weapons. Or they
    may have probable cause, a warrant, etc. If you are being detained or arrested,
    SAY NOTHING from this point on until your lawyer is present, except perhaps
    to ask for him/her. And this request must be explicit and unambiguous:
    You: "I want to speak to an attorney"
    or some such. "I think I want to speak to an attorney" doesn't cut it.

    The basic idea is to, by your questions, ensure that they have at least reasonable
    suspicion to detain you. Because if they don't, and you are detained, the interaction
    will be deemed non-consensual, and Fourth Amendment protections will apply. If you
    voluntarily consent to talking to them, or to searches, you waive your Fourth Amendment
    rights, and any evidence they can find will be admissible in court.

    This is a good policy, especially if you have "nothing to hide", because then you
    won't waste your and their time on a pointless search, and they can move on
    to more productive law-enforcement activities. You don't have to worry about
    them not being your friend if you refuse; they weren't your friend to start with
    and they weren't asking you out on a date anyway.

  • Elemenope||

    Our government doesnt have a monopoly on it now, and yet they continue to exist.

    Uh, yeah, they do, in the Weberian sense. The original formulation (IIRC) was that a state has monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force, and any subsidiary acts of force (such as, say, a person acting in their own self-defense) are legitimated only by acts of the state to make them legal. So far as I know, self-defense is legal in the US as a practical matter *only* because courts and laws have decided it is legal.

    Whether that *should* be the case is of course another discussion entirely.

  • ||

    As I have informed you in the past, Mr. Rothbard does a great job of explaining this in For a New Liberty in the chapter entitled, Police, Law and the Courts. Yes, I know that you do not particularly care for him.

    Have to get back to work.

  • ||

    Asking to be arrested was prety shrewd,
    actually. By doing this, a paper trail would have to be created, making litgation more easy. They just wanted to mug him and
    be gone.
    Remember this is the end of the Bush
    crime syndicate, so the 4th amendent is
    dormant or dead.

  • ||

    """Though they cannot compel you to produce ID unless you are driving a car, in which case they can ask for a driver's license."""

    In NYC if you can't produce ID they may detain you until they can identify you. They've been getting away with it since the Ghouliani days.

  • Paul||

    have no love for the liberal judges who voted for Kelo. My point is, lots of people round these parts profess love for those conservative judges who voted for Hiibel, and insist strenuously that--no, really!--the conservative judges are better on civil liberties than the liberal ones.

    I hear you, lmnop, and I wouldn't have thought otherwise. But give us libertarians some credit. Some of us might have been conservative judge fluffers here and there, but most of us post 9/11 have had to come to terms with edifying a given group of judges. There's nothing more disappointing than to have your favorite judge stab you in the chest a dozen times with lousy rulings.

  • LoopFiasco||

    Yes, you have the absolute right to ignore police inquiries in public and go about your business assuming you were doing nothing wrong at the time.

    These type of stops of people who match the drug courier profile fall under the voluntary contact cases in 4th amendment case law. If the coppers had more evidence, they wouldn't ask for permission they would just detain you and take your shit.

    Because these encounters are voluntary, you have the right to ignore the police questions, and to simply leave. The commenter above gave an excellent description of what you should do and say.

    As far as getting his stuff back; the cops can hold it as potential evidence for like 60days before they have to file civil court documents to forfeit the property (if they are saying the property is proceeds of illegal drug deals). Either way, he should have never allowed anyone to take custody of his property in the first place without being under arrest or being presented with a court order allowing the seizure. What a pussy.

  • ||

    It seems to me that the correct thing to do would have been to ask them if he was under arrest, and if they said no, to tell them that he's not going anywhere or answering any questions.

    Whereupon they probably would have arrested him. Probable cause? Too much cash, buying a ticket with cash.

    Or is the Constitution suspended at airports?

    Not only at airports.

  • oat willie||

    "Either way, he should have never allowed anyone to take custody of his property in the first place without being under arrest or being presented with a court order allowing the seizure. What a pussy."

    I would imagine, taking the "tough guy" approach would get your stuff siezed and a tazin' just for good measure.

    Maybe you can try to "keep it real" with the cops and tell us about how it works out for you. They have you out gunned, out manned and you are one person, sometimes polite discretion and being firm, but cooperative, may get you out of a jam better than being a PITA.

    /Cops take notes for later reference in court about your demeanor and "attitude".

  • cunnivore||

    Probable cause? Too much cash, buying a ticket with cash.

    Probable cause for suspicion of what specific crime? IANAL but doesn't probable cause have to be just as specific as an arrest warrant would have to be?

  • JB||

    I may "mug" the next politician I see in DC.

    It won't be a crime...just spreading the wealth around.

  • ||

    Wow, dude that is the craziest thing I have ever seen.

    RT
    www.Privacy-Center.net

  • ||

    Comment #1: "People really need to start standing up to these agents when they come after them".

    This means you get tazed dumbass.

  • ||

    They were following the law. It is all because of the "war on drugs". If you have more then x amount of cash the police can seize the money then it is up to you to proof where you got it. If not they can just keep it without charging you with anything. It is because the Government has too much power. The funny part is a little over half the country voted for the guy who is going to give us more government. LMAO but who cares as long as those evil rich guys pay more money and american idol is still on tv.

  • oat willie||

    Asserting your rights isnt being tough guy - if you know you are not connected to a crime you have the leverage.

    Its advisable you assert it then because lord knows the coppers do not have your best interest at heart.

    And just because you may fit a drug courier profile DOES NOT equal probable cause. The cases are clear on this - and there are many.

    If you encounter a rogue cop who is going to plant stuff on you or whatever, you were fuck'd from the get-go once they decided to approach you.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Funny Naga. I am a (fairly successful) poker player, and have always found bartenders to be assholes. :)

  • ||

    What a bunch of retarded comments. Sure it's better to tell the cops to shove it if you're in the right. But do you know where that gets you? Behind bars. This guy knows this because he's had priors. Have you been to jail? A bad jail? It's hell on earth. Once you see it, you'll avoid it at all costs. All you sanctimonious pricks have, no doubt, never been behind bars; and are passing judgment on a situation you've never experienced.

  • ||

    Why do you cross out Toledo, Ohio and have Detroit in regular print if Detroit is right?

  • ||

    I once traveled with $12.50 and some DEA bastards fondled my balls.

  • ||

    Hopefully the DEA has picked on someone with the financial wherewithal to fight them in court. It's not illegal to possess US currency, even in large quantities. The civil forfeiture laws are blatant violations of a person's right to due process of law.

    -jcr

  • ||

    A simple case of theft by thugs from the DEA. The TSA is no different. They've been stealing the property of dragooned passengers for years now and nobody does a thing about it. Anyone who protests at being robbed is taken away and charged with interference with the TSA function. I have refused to fly for years. Let the airlines and the TSA keep their airports; I'll keep my money and use other means to go from point A to point B.

  • dOubleshOt||

    They weren't real DEA agents, he just got robbed. This has happened before in major airports especially in Europe, they pose as agents or police and shake down people they know or think may have large sums of money/valuables on them. I feel sorry for the guy.

  • ||

    Jordan said:

    "Or is the Constitution suspended at airports."

    I hate to say it, but YES, the Constitution IS suspended at airports...in a way.

    Airports are a "no man's land", in other words, they are entities unto themselves and are NOT part of a city, municipality, etc, but are "islands" and the DEA, FBI, ATF, CIA, etc KNOW this and USE it.

    And these days with all the terrorism BS, you'd better mind your Ps and Qs or you'll get your head beat in. Lawsuit? Attorney? If "sh*t" happens in an airport all bets are off and may god help you!

  • ||

    DEA/ATF = the new SS in AmeriKa

  • ||

    There is more to this story.

    And who the heck pays cash for first class seats. Everyone knows that's a terrorist flag.

  • ||

    Any further news on this incident?

    Were the "DEA agents" the real thing or was this a con job?

    Has Viffer heard anything further?

  • qwerty||

    The DEA agents had no way of knowing who he was, unless they watch poker at night on ESPN (which no one does). They could have just asked him for a cashadvance. haha

    No. the truth is, this is a one sided story that has all the 'who me' elements of Bullshit.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement