Asset Forfeiture

Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash

Prosecutors tried to drop the forfeiture case, but the judge would not let them.

|

Iowa State Patrol

The story of how cops stole $20,000 from Guillermo Espinoza, a construction worker with no criminal record, is sadly familiar in most respects: In July 2013, while driving through Arkansas on his way to Texas, Espinoza was pulled over by a state trooper who discovered a large amount of cash in the car, which he viewed as inherently suspicious. The money was seized and eventually forfeited based on vague allegations of drug-related activity. But there's a twist: There was so little evidence of such activity that local prosecutors decided to drop the forfeiture case. The judge would not let them, and last week a state appeals court declined to review that astounding decision because Espinoza had missed a filing deadline.

It's not clear why Arkansas State Police Sgt. Dennis Overton decided to stop Espinoza, who was traveling with his girlfriend, Priscila Hernandez. The legal justification for pulling Espinoza over was missing from the state's September 2013 forfeiture complaint, which referred without explanation to "the traffic stop," and from Circuit Court Judge Chris Williams' September 2014 order authorizing permanent confiscation of the money, which said only that the stop was "proper." In his response to the forfeiture complaint, Espinoza argued that the stop was illegal, so it would be nice to know what the rationale for it was. While police have no shortage of excuses for pulling motorists over, they are supposed to settle on at least one.

After the stop, Judge Williams said, a "State of Arkansas drug dog was transported to the site in order to conduct a search of the vehicle." That's a revealing way of putting it, since according to the Supreme Court walking a drug-sniffing dog around a car does not qualify as a search. But if the dog "alerts" to the car, the Court says, that alone supplies probable cause for a search. So what Williams evidently meant was that Sgt. Overton requested a drug dog on the assumption that it would give him the permission he needed to search the car. But according to Williams, "It is obvious from the tape [of the traffic stop] that the dog did not alert on the vehicle at the scene of the stop."

Undeterred, Overton asked for permission to search the car, which Espinoza supposedly granted—a pretty suspicious sequence of events. Why bother bringing in a drug dog to justify searching a car if the driver is willing to give his consent? In any case, Williams said, "the dog alerted on a computer bag," inside which Overton found $19,894 in cash, mostly wrapped in $1,000 bundles. Overton found no contraband, drug paraphernalia, or any other sign of illegal activity. But as far as he was concerned, the cash itself was conclusive evidence that Espinoza was involved in drug trafficking.

"I've worked this interstate for the last eight years," Overton told Espinoza, according to the transcript of the dashcam video, which Williams appended to his order. "Half of my career I've spent out here. OK? Nobody—nobody—carries their money like that but one person. OK? People that deal with drugs, and deliver drugs. That's it. Nobody else. Nobody." In other words, Overton always treats people who carry large amounts of cash as criminals, which proves that only criminals carry large amounts of cash.

Espinoza, who had no criminal record and was never charged in this case, said the money came from years of construction work, and he later presented checks, receipts, and tax forms to substantiate that income. He said he took the money with him to Memphis because he was planning to buy a 4×4 truck there. But he was not happy with the advertised vehicle, so he did not complete the purchase. He offered to show Overton text messages he had exchanged with the truck seller and said his boss, whom he offered to call, would vouch for him. Overton, already convinced of Espinoza's guilt, was not interested.

Aside from the existence of the cash and the police dog's purported alert to the computer bag, the forfeiture complaint offered no evidence that Espinoza was dealing or delivering drugs. It simply asserted that "the currency was being used for drug trafficking, to further the manufacture of a controlled substance or…to facilitate the violation of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-64-536," which criminalizes possessing with intent to deliver marijuana or any other "Schedule VI controlled substance." In other words, prosecutors not only had no real evidence that Espinoza had committed a crime or was planning to do so; they could not even be bothered to specify the crime.

Although vague charges supported by meager evidence are par for the course in civil forfeiture cases, someone at the Hot Spring County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had second thoughts about this case. "The Plaintiff has decided not to pursue the forfeiture of the currency," Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Teresa Howell said in a May 2014 motion, "and the In Rem Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice." Amazingly, Judge Williams went ahead with the forfeiture anyway, making the state's case for it by citing snatches of Spanish conversation between Espinoza and Hernandez that can be heard in the dashcam video. 

The transcript of that conversation shows Espinoza was anxious that Overton would find the cash, which is either evidence of his criminal culpability or perfectly understandable in light of what ultimately happened to his money. It also shows Espinoza talking to his girlfriend about their trip to Graceland and his plan to buy a truck in Memphis, which Williams read as rehearsal of a cover story but which could also be taken at face value. Williams also made much of "inconsistent statements" by Espinoza and Hernandez, which could be explained by their limited English skills and nervousness.

Williams counted that nervousness as additional evidence of Espinoza's involvement in drug trafficking. After all, why would an innocent person be nervous when confronted by an armed agent of the state intent on searching his vehicle, implicating him in drug crimes, and seizing anything of value he might find? At the same time, Williams suggested that Espinoza was not nervous enough: "It is very obvious that Mr. Espinoza, during the whole stop which was filmed, was very stoic." Williams concluded that the state, which was no longer trying to prove its case, nevertheless had succeeded by meeting the "preponderance of the evidence" standard for civil forfeiture in Arkansas, meaning it was more likely than not that the money had something to do with illegal drugs. Williams rejected Espinoza's argument that the stop, detention, and search leading to the seizure were unconstitutional.

On appeal, Espinoza argued that Williams abused his discretion by refusing to let prosecutors drop the case, that the state had not met its burden of proof, and that the traffic stop was illegally extended to facilitate the canine inspection and search. The state appeals court declined to consider any of those issues because Espinoza missed the 30-day deadline for challenging Williams' decision and the 10-day deadline for extending the 30-day deadline. While concurring in that result, Judge Waymond Brown wrote separately to highlight the injustice Espinoza had suffered:

After exhaustive research and effort, I cannot see why the trial judge would decide to follow through with the forfeiture of Mr. Espinoza's $19,894, when the charging agency moved to dismiss without prejudice, believing it lacked the evidence to confiscate the money….

In his order, the judge noted statements such as, "What are we going to do? They just found the money," and "Please don't find it, please don't find it" in determining that both Mr. Espinoza and his companion "knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road." Absent from the same order was the obvious language barrier that existed between Mr. Espinoza and the arresting officer, the officer's insistence that he had been a state trooper for sixteen years and there was only one reason someone would carry that much cash in his vehicle, the officer's apparent refusal to be shown text messages between Mr. Espinoza and the person from whom he said he wished to buy a truck, or even Mr. Espinoza's companion's statement, "You didn't tell me you had that money. You just told me we were coming to buy a truck."

Meanwhile, Mr. Espinoza presented the trial court with numerous paychecks from various construction jobs, as well as tax documents evidencing his argument that the money was lawfully earned. Nevertheless, the trial judge ordered forfeiture of the nearly $20,000. In response to Mr. Espinoza's motion for reconsideration, the judge simply stated, "The Defendant's Motion to Reconsider is denied and without merit." He gave no further explanation. I am of the belief that unsubstantiated suspicions are not just cause for circumventing established judicial practices.

Nor should unsubstantiated suspicions be cause for taking someone's property, even when prosecutors decide to give it a try. As state legislators around the country are beginning to recognize, laws that allow forfeiture without a criminal conviction (or even criminal charges) are an invitation to highway robbery.

[Thanks to Nick Sibilla for the tip.] 

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.

94 responses to “Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash

  1. I’m just happy the mask is off. The state exist to steal, full stop.

    1. The mask’s been off for a long time, but nobody seems to care.

      1. It can’t happen to them. The guy must have been doing something wrong.

        1. If you pretend it’s not happening, then you don’t have to do anything about it.

          1. Florida, next to California, was one of the states most affected by the asset-forfeiture-triggered subprime economic collapse, thanks to concurrent enforcement by the DemoGOP. And 2013 was WELL into the Kenyan’s watch, and that other party is supposed to be different from God’s Own Prohibitionists?

        2. The thing is, who cares if he was in the commission of “doing something wrong?” If no solid evidence exists of a crime, the State should go fuck themselves. “Should” being the operative word for this case.

      2. People care insofar as they can make it about go-team-go or identity politics. Otherwise, this doesn’t even register.

        1. Here’s a 9/11 sample from a Nancy & Ronnie prohibition revival bill:
          H.AMDT.1201 Amendment Offered by Representative Lungren.
          Amendment to allow the forfeiture of substitute assets when a convicted drug dealer has hidden drug profits from prosecutors. (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986)
          Also: October 26, 1987 -8.0% Drug testing, minimums and forfeiture enforcement, Pollock weakened; Internal Revenue bureau rules on keeping of records of taxable sales or transactions in brewers’ wort.
          THIS was when the economy collapsed after the stock market alerted to the damage done by looter prohibitionists. Herbert Hoover to George Herbert Walker Bush, altruistic looting to enforce mystical prohibition causes economic depression, and is behind every flash crash. (Starting to care now?)

  2. Brutal 🙁
    Is there anything left for him to do to get the money back?

    1. Sure, but it’ll take at least two years and $50k in legal fees.

    2. The cop and the judge have already spent it.

      1. Is the looter wearing a pistol?

    3. Frank Castle?

  3. “We recognize that the judge vastly overstepped his bounds, but a filing deadline was missed, so our hands our tied”

    1. “What is behind that door, Mr. Galt?” “Private property.” “Would you open it, please?” “No.” The leader spread his hands out in a gesture of pained helplessness. “Unfortunately, my hands are tied. Orders, you know.
      –Ayn, 1957

  4. “Half of my career I’ve spent out here. OK? Nobody?nobody?carries their money like that but one person. OK? People that deal with drugs, and deliver drugs. That’s it. Nobody else. Nobody.”

    As he walks away with the $20k.

    1. Someone should arrest the cop, he’s obviously dealing.

      1. Nobody-nobody. Nobody else. Nobody.

    2. “But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law?-men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims?-then money becomes its creators’ avenger. ” Ayn, 1957

  5. both Mr. Espinoza and his companion “knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road.”

    Illicit money. Huh. Now money itself is prohibited.
    This isn’t stealing, it’s full-on armed robbery.

    1. It used to be legal for religious fanatics to torture people and burn them alive in the public square. Most of Europe (excepting Paris and Loudon) have repealed those laws. Count yourselves lucky to be in on the tail end of collapsing christianofascism.

  6. On the one hand $20,000 in cash is a little suspicious, but come on officer. He was trying to comply and show you. This is fucking dumb.

    1. But he put it in a computer bag in the way drug dealers do. Thus, he’s a drug dealer. This cop is the expert, you have to let the experts deal with this stuff. If that cop says a tomato plant is a narcotic, then it is!

      1. (in horrified tone) Are you calling an officer of the law a liar?

        1. No Texas jury duty for that one! Kiss that $6 goodbye, suckka!

        2. He is a hero and puts his life on the line everyday. When you are in danger you will call him.

          1. “When you call him, you will be in danger.”

            FTFY

      2. Tomacco!

        1. marijuanomato

          1. I’ll take two dozen of those*.

            *note for the NSA stooge watching this board: drugs are bad, and this post in no way condones their use.

    2. That’s what happens when the government conducts a war on cash. It’s their way of making a criminal out of people and makes for stealing it so much easier. Not being easy to trace and all that.

      I’m willing to bet the cop is a corrupt asshole and the judge is in on the game.

      Because human nature. If it’s suspicious to carry cash then it’s suspicious to have asset forfeiture.

      There are no good guys anymore. Just plunderers and producers.

      That’s my blanket statement for the day.

      1. Well, cash is clearly just an instrument of evil. I read a story just the other day about how the EU and the US should stop printing large-denomination bills and maybe even remove them from circulation completely, to fight drugs and terrorism.

  7. ” I cannot see why the trial judge would decide to follow through with the forfeiture of Mr. Espinoza’s $19,894″

    Well, I can. Since judges are humans – and humans are wretched creatures – then it’s possible the judge is either corrupt or incompetent. Or both.

    I find it interesting that ‘no one does ‘X” has legal weight now.

    1. If it was something like “no one keeps a duffle bag full of human heads” or “no one wears a necklace of human ears” I could kinda see the point. Otherwise, I agree.

      1. Bracelets maybe…

    2. And as pointed out about, this is a wonderfully circular argument. “No one but criminals does X, so you must be a criminal, further proving that only criminals do X!”

      1. This thing about ‘worshiping’ or overly respecting authority figures needs to chill a tad in my view.

        We *know* such figures are not infallible and we know they’re sometimes corrupt. If one of the premises of a judge is to conclude or arrive at some “truth” of humanity, then I don’t see why it can’t be reversed. That is, the judge us on the acts of a minority and so should we.

        Citizens should absolutely view such figures with a healthy dose of skepticism.

      2. It’s more a case of affirming the consequent.

    3. I see almost twenty thousand reasons why that district would want to rule in favor of the state.

      1. “Sharing” is good, right? Isn’t that what they always taught us?

        On August 14, 1989 General Thornburgh announced the first international sharing of seized drug trafficking profits.(4) From House Financial Services Committee Archives…

        Sharing! not robbing or looting, okay comrade?

    4. Woodchippers.

  8. The state appeals court declined to consider any of those issues because Espinoza missed the 30-day deadline for challenging Williams’ decision and the 10-day deadline for extending the 30-day deadline. While concurring in that result, Judge Waymond Brown wrote separately to highlight the injustice Espinoza had suffered:

    According to IJ, Espinoza missed the 10-day civil procedure deadline while arguing that the confiscation should be handled as a criminal matter, which allows for thirty days. So he wasn’t forty days late in filing, just ten.

  9. My home state continually disappoints me.

  10. Bad cash, bad cash. Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad cash.

  11. Time to fire up the woodchipper, boys!

  12. Commence your Home Business. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $84/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously….2P….

    ———— http://www.WorkProspects.com

  13. “It’s not clear why Arizona State Police Sgt. Dennis Overton”

    I think that’s supposed to be Arkansas

    1. He works in Arkansas, but identifies as an Arizona Police Sgt. Trans-Statist-Fluidity donchaknow?

  14. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

  15. Just for the record; some people do carry cash like that. I, for one, went to buy an airplane a few years ago and since it was in another state I brought cash with me. I carried $75,000 in cash and when satisfied that the plane was worth it I paid for it with that cash. That cop was lying and the judge was in on it with him.

    1. You’re white. You can do that.

      Minorities are presumed to be drug mules.

      1. Also, you probably had a monocle and walking stick.

      2. No. It’s not the color of the skin, but the image one presents.

        If you are going to be a drug mule, drive a late model mini-van, sedan, or pickup while wearing middle-class casual clothes. Ideally with kids, or failing that a cute fluffy lap-dog that doesn’t bark much.

        If you wish to avoid getting hassled by LEOs, then don’t….
        drive a filthy car, with damage, busted lights, missing caps.
        have tinted windows
        have tricked out accessories, particularly noisy exhaust
        play really loud music unless it’s country or classical
        dress like a thug, hippy, or addict. Comb your hair, avoid bloodshot eyes and dirt on the face. If you must be dirty/scruff, then wear workclothes and have stained hands indicative of manual labor.

        This is why 90%+ of drug trafficking goes undetected/unstopped. only 10% of traffickers are morons.

        1. In no way am I saying that getting hassled by LEOs is forgivable. But rather that they respond to profiling and other cues. Just learn to manipulate them.

          All these stories have a taint of fishiness because the victims didn’t play the game right. Hence the public isn’t getting fired up.

  16. That guy may have lost his money, but he should be grateful he doesn’t live in a Third World hellhole where crooked cops steal your…um…never mind.

  17. Civil forfeiture, in which no criminal conviction has occurred, is pure theft and a violation of the Fifth Amendment. But this is irrelevant in today’s anti-Bill of Rights era. Fortunately, some places are taking steps to prevent this sort of theft. Others remain active kleptocracies.

    1. This is what I fail to understand about forfeiture without a conviction.
      The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”.
      Is there anyone, who can argue, with a straight face, that this “guilt by allegation” is considered “due process of the law”?
      “Suspicious money” should be held until the one possessing it is found guilty of some crime with which the amassing of the money is connected. Failing that, the money should be returned.
      Far too much power is placed in the hands, not of police, but of these black-robed-glorified-lawyers. They constantly make rulings in opposition to law and the cost of appealing those are astronomical, while the appeal has to go to other black-robed-glorified-lawyers.
      Our “legal” system needs a step in which ordinary citizens get to review a judge’s decision, wherein the argument of FYTW is not permitted.

      1. ‘Is there anyone, who can argue, with a straight face, that this “guilt by allegation” is considered “due process of the law”?’

        Er… Congress?

  18. Civil forfeiture is one of those legal terms that make it sound okay: all wrapped up with procedures, courts, judgments, briefs, filing deadlines, attorneys, appeals, opinions, and so on. In fact it is just theft. That’s what we should call it.

    Now we have to ask, how long has this theft been going on? According to Wikipedia, civil forfeiture increased substantially about thirty years ago, as part of government’s war on drugs. That is a long time for a program of legalized theft to take root. At this point, you cannot merely say, “Civil forfeiture is bad,” and expect anyone who has power to make a difference to pay attention.

    It would be great if an issue like this came up in the selection of Supreme Court justices, but you won’t see it happen in the near term. So we have to keep saying, “This is bad,” hoping that someone will pay attention, some day.

    1. It strikes me that possibly the first thing that needs to happen is for the thing to be properly named. Asset Forfeiture doesn’t do justice to the thing, nor does Civil Asset Forfeiture begin to properly describe what is simply and plainly Theft Under Color Of Law. That’s what the thing is, and that is how it should be described.

  19. WOW! Imagine if there weren’t 300 million guns in the USA.

  20. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  21. That judge is a thieving son of a bitch.

    -jcr

  22. I wonder what the judge’s take from what seems Grand Larceny by Officialdom might be. It strikes me that we see here, an all to clear case of Theft Under Color of Law, and that in addition, both the judge and the officer should be closely examined. The last suggested will likely not happen, which is a large part of the problem.

  23. Overton didn’t care about whether Espinoza was guilty of anything: he just wanted the cash. The laws which allow departments to keep forfeitures and profit from them is corrupting.

    It sounds line the court budget gets a cut of the action, too.

  24. Overton didn’t care about whether Espinoza was guilty of anything: he just wanted the cash. The laws which allow departments to keep forfeitures and profit from them is corrupting.

    It sounds line the court budget gets a cut of the action, too.

  25. The only good cop is a dead cop.
    Shoot first. Answer the pig’s question’s later.
    Take back the streets, America.

  26. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. You will lose nothing, just try it out on the following website. http://www.social36.com

  27. There are so many things in this story to make one’s blood boil. But to properly mock and call out just one item: This thing called “state trooper”.

    One of the most unnecessary elements of civilian peace keeping. Probably one of the safest cop jobs around, yet so highly vaunted. And those insidious, laughable hats they wear need shoved up their cowardly bums.

    To “state troopers” everywhere, go get a real job. Do something productive with your life.

  28. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  29. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  30. As with this article there are exceptions, but, most of the media couldn’t care less about justice. Justice does little to fatten their paychecks. The more dishonest, lying, cheating government you have, the more the media tends to profit.

    1. The more dishonest, lying, cheating government you have, the more the media legal profession tends to profit.

  31. I hope that IJ finds a way to follow up with more legal action on Espinoza’s behalf, because fuck Arkansas.

  32. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  33. Legalized theft. Thanks to the War on (some) Drugs

    1. Wonder if the arresting(?) officer got a cut?

  34. Narcs keep drug dogs. Looters train money-sniffing dogs, thanks to George Holy War Bush and his asset-forfeiture war against the economy. If Bush had his way and had secured death sentences for hemp kingpins, Gary Johnson (of NM) would be stretching a rope about now.

  35. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    ———————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  36. I carried $50,000 in cash and when satisfied that the plane was worth it I paid for it with that cash. That cop was lying and the judge was in on it with him.

  37. Excellent post. I’m keen all your post. I have a relatively sheet all your articles. Thanks of this best post.
    https://tourdefrance-live.com

  38. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.cashapp24.com

  39. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  40. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $120 per hour.

    I work through this link. Go here——————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  41. RE: Arkansas Trooper Steals $20,000, Because Nobody Innocent Carries That Much Cash
    Prosecutors tried to drop the forfeiture case, but the judge would not let them.

    Where do I start?
    1. The trooper was probably giving a certain percentage to a former Arkansas governor.
    2. The trooper is following a wonderful tradition of law enforcement of removing temptation from a potential sinner.
    3. The trooper lost that amount in the recent financial crisis.
    4. The trooper had to give half to the judge.
    5. The trooper saw all that green and thought it was lettuce and put it on his salad.
    6. The trooper is right. Carrying around that much cash indicates the person is guilty…of something.
    7. The trooper is just taking the money so the Arkansas State Police won’t go bankrupt tomorrow.
    8. The trooper has a lot of bills, alimony and child support payments justifying taking the money.
    9. The trooper represents all what is wrong in civil asset forfeiture laws…nah, that can’t be it. Stealing is what the State does best.

  42. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  43. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do—————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  44. I hope someone set up a GoFundMe or something similar for him.

  45. I’m making over $8k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do.———————— http://www.earntimes.tk/

  46. I’ll bet that the cops knew the money was in the car before they made the traffic stop. How they knew is hard to say (an informant??), but that is usually the case with these kind of events.

  47. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  48. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  49. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.