Level of Local Police Enforcement

Patrick thank you for your comment.

I have also been noticing what appears as a significant spike in the number of police traffic stops. I know we all want to have our town be safe especially pedestrian safe. I know that my driving has changed to be more attentive so from that standpoint there has been a benefit. However, it just seems that our police are lurking and nabbing drivers more. At times I avoid main streets in Sebastopol since it has become a ticket giving haven. I dont' like that feel.

Are the number of tickets per citizen population up statistically? Is our police department enforcing a new mandate or policy? Is the motivation to increase revenue?

Worth asking our elected officials....which I will.

I see 3 or more stalking or moving cruisers every local shopping trip, more if I go further in Sonoma County. The psychological effect of being on the verge of being stopped for any baby infraction especially knowing their time could be much better spent sifting out real criminals is nerve-wracking, feels constantly in my face and totally detracts from feeling free in what even the police have described as our 'Mayberry RFD' community where very, very ,very few constituents have any IRRESPONSIBLE or criminal out of line intentions even if some paper-law is skirted.

I drove 2500 miles from Chicago to SF on 90 this summer. WOW. I never saw a cruiser on the road or in towns and it was strikingly obvious. I was shocked at how noticeable and relieving the psychological effect of feeling FREE was. It was totally different from practically the moment I re-entered California when there they were again. I realized to what an extreme degree I don't feel free in California.

On the road with no cruisers, without the feeling of being tailed, watched and unfairly nitpicked, self-responsibility and awareness of others and your surroundings kicks in even greater - not the opposite - NOT the feeling of license to go wild and break laws as you want if you don't feel stalked.

It was a surprising lesson, and liberating enough to consider moving to Wyoming or South Dakota for. America as originally envisioned is thriving far stronger there than here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

I see 3 or more stalking or moving cruisers every local shopping trip... . The psychological effect of being on the verge of being stopped for any baby infraction especially knowing their time could be much better spent sifting out real criminals is nerve-wracking,....
On the road with no cruisers, without the feeling of being tailed, watched and unfairly nitpicked, self-responsibility and awareness of others and your surroundings kicks in even greater - not the opposite - NOT the feeling of license to go wild and break laws as you want if you don't feel stalked.

It was a surprising lesson, and liberating enough to consider moving to Wyoming or South Dakota for. America as originally envisioned is thriving far stronger there than here.

---

originally envisioned by who, exactly? there's that nice fantasy world where everyone behaves well to each other, speaks laconically and rides the range to watch the sunset. That's the Wyoming it sounds like you expect to find.

Personally, I like driving where there aren't cops because I do have "the feeling of license to go wild and break laws". Not that I'm particularly likely to, but I like the option if I want it. So the rest of you are lucky there actually are cops around, maybe! How far are you willing to go with this freedom-from-cops kick? Do you care if we enforce drunk-driving laws, or speeding? That's not just a rhetorical question, either. I might risk living in a place where enforcement happened only after the crash, myself, in the interest of having freedom from pre-emptive arrests. A truly freedom-oriented society wouldn't tolerate laws against risk-taking, because they inherently limit freedom based only on the possibility, not realization, of harm. That isn't the world most people actually want to live in, despite their protestations.

I've had plenty of encounters with law enforcement, some pleasant, some scary; some where they were seriously over-reacting and some where they were conscientious and flexible. Without actually having seen the encounters people around here complain about, I can't make blanket statements, but none of the descriptions of these casual stops sound as heavy-handed as the victims of them seem to feel.

I know it'd be nice to be recognized as one of the good ones, but the ability of the officers to "sift out real criminals" isn't as good as it maybe ought to be. Actually, I think this community gets pretty much the law enforcement it wants. There're almost no visible sketchy elements or disruptive behavior; it's a pretty comfy and homogenous place. Without the "stalking crusiers" you might find the nature of the town changing in a way that you don't like.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

originally envisioned by who, exactly? there's that nice fantasy world where everyone behaves well to each other, speaks laconically and rides the range to watch the sunset. That's the Wyoming it sounds like you expect to find.....

...I know it'd be nice to be recognized as one of the good ones, but the ability of the officers to "sift out real criminals" isn't as good as it maybe ought to be. Actually, I think this community gets pretty much the law enforcement it wants. There're almost no visible sketchy elements or disruptive behavior; it's a pretty comfy and homogenous place. Without the "stalking crusiers" you might find the nature of the town changing in a way that you don't like.

---

I think you stated all the logical and reasonable counter points to my observation and feelings very well. I realize though that the part of me that wants to 'give in' to your thinking in the name of safety, is making that choice based in fear. Fear that if we don't allow laws, law enforcers and determent only through threat of punishment, there will be more criminals and harming-others law breakers than we want to live with,

I theoretically disagree.

No matter what kind of society, there will always be rogues, immatures, mentally ill and angry harmers. But I think unacceptable behavior is mostly rooted in resentment at the feeling of being overpowered and controlled and not free. Like many tribal societies successfully demonstrate, I suspect that less law engenders contagious self-regulation and overall more people with motivation to 'do no harm'.

I'm also far more in favor of rehabilitative and humanitarian repercussions, especially a system where harmers can contribute somehow to society to pay back for their offense rather than our costly, pointless, degrading, inhumane current prison system which is a total failure at deterrence.

Anyway, back to the point, I would be far more accepting of the constant stalker cruisers if I knew they were only keeping an eye out for the extremes. Leave the seat belters, mildly totally responsibly over the speed limit-ers and doing-no-harmers alone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

...It was a surprising lesson, and liberating enough to consider moving to Wyoming or South Dakota for. America as originally envisioned is thriving far stronger there than here.

---

Consider this: Wyoming residents do not need a license to carry concealed weapons.

South Dakota “No county may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.”

Would you feel psychologically safer or freer in either of these states?

Personally I think "feeling free" has more to do from within than from outside ourselves.

“The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given circumstance.”
― Viktor E. Frankl

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

Like many tribal societies successfully demonstrate, I suspect that less law engenders contagious self-regulation and overall more people with motivation to 'do no harm'. .

---

ok, way OT but it's an interesting topic for me. The image of tribal life being peaceful is apparently an urban legend - in the real sense of the world, because urban people seem to wish it were so. One anecdote I just heard as part of a radio show about tribal casinos: one tribe member said he hated "Dancing with Wolves" because of the portrayal of the councils showed calm, rational discussion with respect for the elders and time for people to express their views. He said he'd never been in a meeting like that and considered it a white-man's stereotype. Kinda funny... but anyway, more realistically, tribes often are suspicious of outsiders and stringent on enforcement of conformance within. Tribal life was often marked by warfare and competition. Really, I don't know of any historical reference point where there's been much in the way of freedom of expression and tolerance of differences. Sad as it may be, we're about as free as anyone has ever been. Ancient Athens? not so much.. prehistoric America? nope. European history is pretty turbulent. Maybe a few utopian colonies last century - just don't count the one that ended up in Utah...

I'd agree with Alexia's apparent position that it's possible to be a little too stringent in penalizing minor infractions, though I may or may not agree with her on any specific example. And certainly many laws are just plain oppressive and deserve neither respect nor compliance. But to me, the issue is not more law vs. less law; it's reasonable laws vs. unreasonable ones and fair enforcement vs. unfair enforcement.

And Podster, I don't think your addressing the Noble Savage myth is off topic, since Alexia and others seem to be influenced by it in their deliberations about how much social constraint we should (or shouldn't) be subjected to. I would recommend to everyone Steven Pinker's fascinating book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, in which he debunks the Noble Savage myth among others. For instance, he summarizes anthropological research which shows the violent nature of primitive cultures both present and past, wherein the likelihood of dying at another's hand was/is typically between 10% and 40%, much higher than in modern society. So, precipitously dropping enforcement of laws that protect us from antisocial behaviors like reckless driving seems very unlikely to result in better self-control.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Sad as it may be, we're about as free as anyone has ever been.

---

Nearly true, but FWIW, my understanding is that citizens of some of the "Western democracies" of Europe such as Denmark and the Netherlands enjoy a bit more freedom than we denizens of the American Empire.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Consider this: Wyoming residents do not need a license to carry concealed weapons.

South Dakota “No county may pass any ordinance that restricts possession, transportation, sale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, or repair of firearms or ammunition or their components. Any ordinances prohibited by this section are null and void.”

---

THANKS! I didn't know that. I'd make a beeline if the populace has ever finally had enough and acts to take their power back. Also wonder what looser gun law states crime statistics are in comparison.

Quote:

---

Would you feel psychologically safer or freer in either of these states?

---

Absolutely! Now or later. I'd MUCH rather be surrounded by rights defending citizens with guns than any government organization. Guns are the only thing keeping the totally unaccountable, getting away with murder criminal office holders at bay and protecting the last vestige of our eroding constitution.

Quote:

---

Personally I think "feeling free" has more to do from within than from outside ourselves.

---

Probably metaphysically so in any exterior situation.But I'm sure glad I didn't have to try to find that place in me in a concentration camp, or right now in numerous very militaristic and oppressive exteriors on Earth and will be continually on the watch to not find myself in one.

How I envy you, Alexia. I'm stuck here in benighted California, while apparently you will soon be living a life of gun-totin' freedom in some more enlightened place like Wyoming or South Dakota. I hope you'll write and let us know how that works out for you.:wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

I'd MUCH rather be surrounded by rights defending citizens with guns than any government organization. Guns are the only thing keeping the totally unaccountable, getting away with murder criminal office holders at bay and protecting the last vestige of our eroding constitution.

---

I think a good case can be made for the citizens' right to be armed. Furthermore, I think that when the U.S. constitution was written, that case included the possibility of citizens defending themselves from the government with their guns. But that's not reality anymore. Nowadays the government is so well-armed, trained and organized that if they decide they really want you, your ass is theirs, no matter how good you think your gun collection is, and no matter how many like-minded friends may be with you. I share your distress about our corrupt, oppressive government, but fantasies about fighting them off with guns should have faded from your fevered imagination around the time you heard about Ruby Ridge and Waco.

And in the case of a breakdown of our social systems, what's left of the government will be the least of your problems, as some percentage of those "rights defending citizens with guns" will be gleefully exercising their right to rob, rape, kill and eat you. There's always gonna be someone with more and bigger guns than you, so putting much faith in guns is likely to, um, backfire.:Firework1:

Quote:

---

Would you feel psychologically safer or freer in either of these states?

Absolutely! Now or later. I'd MUCH rather be surrounded by rights defending citizens with guns than any government organization. Guns are the only thing keeping the totally unaccountable, getting away with murder criminal office holders at bay and protecting the last vestige of our eroding constitution.

---

Dixon's prose is much better than mine, and I endorse the ideas in his response too! but just to add my shekel's worth:

You must not know the same gun-owners I do. When civilization collapses, I want to be far away from most of them. If I could select the "rights defending" ones, maybe that would be ok, but that's not what most of them want guns for; I don't trust their choices of what and whose rights to defend.

Also, where do you get the idea that a government doesn't impose its will because the general population is armed?? Except for places like Somalia and the jungles of Columbia, where has that ever happened? And when that is in fact the case, the resulting society isn't exactly noteworthy as a place where free expression can flourish. For example, though I don't have enough personal knowledge to be sure, it sounds like law enforcement in parts of northern Mexico are influenced by the weaponry in the cartels' possession. The cartels seem to be able to exercise freedom of action, but I haven't heard that they are big supporters of the rights of the general population.
I fully understand the resentment of authority, but I completely fail to understand where this picture of a government kept in check by an armed population comes from. It seems like an idea driven by a romantic rather than a realistic view of how societies function.

I agree with both Alexia and Dixon ... it sometimes becomes necessary for a nation to defend itself against it's government, but due to huge military budgets and scary technological developments, guns will serve as a mild deterrent against the largest and most powerful army in the world .... it's best to think about other solutions ...

The number of cruisers or motorcycle cops always goes up when school starts. While annoying and a bit nerve wracking (even for law abiding citizens) It seems to be a good thing, seems to be only temporary and does help to remind folks to slow down while the the kids are walking to school and crossing streets. At least IMHO, this does remind me and sort of "wakes me up" and causes me to be more alert and look for little ones crossing with or without adult help. It always seems that after the first month of school starting the number of visible officers goes down.

I think moving to South Dakota or Wyoming is an excellent idea for someone with your concerns. Yes, the police here would do more good if they were able to search for real criminals instead of answering petty concerns.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

I see 3 or more stalking or moving cruisers every local shopping trip, more if I go further in Sonoma County. The psychological effect of being on the verge of being stopped for any baby infraction especially knowing their time could be much better spent sifting out real criminals is nerve-wracking,....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

How I envy you, Alexia. I'm stuck here in benighted California, while apparently you will soon be living a life of gun-totin' freedom in some more enlightened place like Wyoming or South Dakota.: .....:

---

LOL. A few scattered comments without quoting various posts...

Ya, I know where I'm being idealistic "less law would engender contagious self-regulation", and I know guns have not kept oppression at bay all the time and the US could overpower all of us guns or not. But it's not in their best interest to upset the whole apple cart, and I think the comparison of the probabilities US to Germany is more appropriate than Somalia or Mexico. Removal of guns is both a huge physically and psychologically disempowering act and one of the Nazi's first steps. I also read it hasn't had the desired murder lowering effect in Australia more recently too.

Who turned in the guns there? Law abiding citizens! Anyway, we can start another thread to discuss whether or not the founding fathers were right that the constitutional right to bear arms is of crucial, central importance to American freedom.

Back to the thread, and what are necessary and unnecessary laws or intrusion on rights. I don't mind sirens at all, hard to believe there's any that are unnecessary. I'd just vote to try living with the consequences of having no laws against harming or endangering yourself, just laws against harming others or harming by intruding on anyone's rights to live in peace and quiet.

Galloping off thru the vineyards....

I think it is a waste of tax dollars to overly police the small towns. In order to justify their reason for being there, they need to satisfy a quota. So, they stalk people and arrest them for minor infractions. Places like Sebastopol would be better off allowing the Sheriff's Dept. to have jurisdiction over the town. That way, cops will show up when needed. I have seen cops entrapping people, hassling homeless people, stopping to try to make an arrest for a peaceful individual smoking a cigar, etc. Ridiculous stuff. If people don't feel safe in Sebastopol without an excessive and costly police force, they might just be emotionally unstable to begin with or have fascist tendencies and enjoy watching kind, moral people being harassed for no critical reason.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by misha77:

I have seen cops entrapping people, hassling homeless people, stopping to try to make an arrest for a peaceful individual smoking a cigar, etc.

---

Not to get off on a tangent--but what was the issue with the cigar-smoker? If he/she was smoking in a nonsmoking area, they damn well deserved to be arrested. Taking away others' right to be nonsmokers by exposing them to your poisonous smoke in an area where you're not supposed to be smoking is not "peaceful". Speaking as someone who has gotten ill many, many times thanks to inconsiderate smokers, I'd love it if the cops would bust everyone they see smoking inconsiderately. :thumbsup:

Actually, it was a guy walking down the street in downtown Sebastopol from San Francisco. He had no idea there was a law. Is there? Anyways, a lady came out of a store front and griped at him and he put it out. Then she called the police and insisted that he be arrested. Was it you? Arresting people for such small infractions is rather harsh and a huge waste of tax dollars. I have asthma, have had pneumonia before and am sensitive to the issue and I still think that is overboard. Adults can manage to get along without this sort of nonsense. He put it out and walked away. The police officer stopping him further on and going on about it was wasting his time.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...If he/she was smoking in a nonsmoking area, they damn well deserved to be arrested. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by misha77:

Actually, it was a guy walking down the street in downtown Sebastopol from San Francisco. He had no idea there was a law. Is there?

---

Dunno. I'm not up to date on the laws in Sebastopol. If it's like many places, it may be illegal to smoke within some number of feet of a door or window (20 feet?) I reckon a considerate smoker would, in California in 2013, err on the side of not doing that, regardless of whether it's legal, so as not to poison the folks in the area.

Quote:

---

Anyways, a lady came out of a store front and griped at him and he put it out. Then she called the police and insisted that he be arrested. Was it you?

---

Ha! No--last I checked, I wasn't a lady. Anyway, the lady shouldn't have had to mention it to him; he should not be in the habit of walking along smoking in an area where other people are trying to breathe. If it was illegal and the law was clearly posted, he should have been busted so he'll think twice about stepping on others' rights next time.

Quote:

---

Arresting people for such small infractions is rather harsh...

---

What would you recommend as an alternative? Letting people get away with imposing their poisonous, nauseating smoke on others? Perhaps a warning the first time with arrest if they keep doing it? (That might be a pretty good idea.)

Quote:

---

...and a huge waste of tax dollars.

---

Medical bills for those who are sick from tobacco smoke, including others' sidestream smoke, is a huge waste of taxpayers' and insurance premium payers' dollars. I reckon that making enough arrests to insure that inconsiderate smokers get the message and change their habits would ultimately save the taxpayers $$.

Quote:

---

Adults can manage to get along without this sort of nonsense.

---

This presupposes that adults are involved in the situation. If someone is so unconscious that they need to be reminded not to smoke where others who don't want it will be breathing it, how adult can they be?

Quote:

---

He put it out and walked away.

---

That's certainly a better response than some things he could have done. But he shouldn't have been smoking it there in the first place.

Quote:

---

The police officer stopping him further on and going on about it was wasting his time.

---

Wasting the cop's time or the smoker's? It's not a waste of time to give an inconsiderate smoker an experience that'll make him less likely to do it again; it's protecting the public, just like cops are supposed to. And if this smoker doesn't want his time "wasted", he now knows how to avoid that--by smoking only when there's no one around who might not want to breathe the smoke.

I have never seen no smoking in public on the sidewalks of Sebastopol. I am sure that there aren't any. At any rate, he put it out and that was that. Again, a waste of police time. I also think that you are trolling and you are wasting time. We don't need to spend tax dollars on putting people in jail for every little transgression. Sensible adults can work things out on their own in conscious communities without much help.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Dunno. I'm not up to date on the laws in Sebastopol. If it's like many places, it may be illegal to smoke within some number of feet of a door or window ...

---

This story is about a tourist from San Francisco who was smoking on the sidewalk. There were no signs that said NO Smoking. Again, he put it out. That was enough. Excessive spending on police takes money away from the schools. We would be better off with just having the Sheriff's Dept. patrolling the city, in my opinion. If you don't want people (tourists included) smoking in Sebastopol, spend money on signs for the sidewalk. It would be a lot cheaper then hiring extra police to enforce this not to mention court costs, the cost of keeping someone in jail, etc.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by misha77:

I have never seen no smoking in public on the sidewalks of Sebastopol. I am sure that there aren't any. At any rate, he put it out and that was that. Again, a waste of police time. I also think that you are trolling and you are wasting time. We don't need to spend tax dollars on putting people in jail for every little transgression. Sensible adults can work things out on their own in conscious communities without much help.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by misha77:

I have never seen no smoking in public on the sidewalks of Sebastopol. I am sure that there aren't any. At any rate, he put it out and that was that.

---

Yes, you've already made it clear that that's your position, and I disagree that we should be so casual about it. If someone was walking down the street grabbing women's asses and politely stopped when asked, would you say "He stopped grabbing asses and that was that"? Or would you agree with me that he shouldn't have been doing that in the first place? By the time someone asks someone to put out their smoke, how many people do you think have already had the nasty stuff imposed on them? So, IMHO, it's not enough to say "He put it out and that was that." The point is, he shouldn't have been smoking around others in the first place (whether or not it's legal), and apparently he needs a cop to impress that elementary concept upon his little pea brain.

Quote:

---

I also think that you are trolling...

---

This is a serious accusation with no basis in fact, and you owe me an apology for it. I often disagree vehemently with people, some of whom annoy me and frustrate me considerably (you, for one), but I rarely label anyone a troll, which is tantamount to calling them an asshole. I'm not sure how you define "troll", but to me, disagreeing with me or even getting a bit snarky or sarcastic wouldn't make someone a troll. To me, a troll is someone who, instead of arguing in good faith, shows signs of saying things just for the purpose of causing dissension, frustration, and conflict. For instance, purposely misrepresenting someone's argument, or evading the real issues to focus on griping and carping are trollish behaviors. Whether you like my arguments or not, I am never a troll, and I await your apology for accusing me of being one.

Quote:

---

...and you are wasting time.

---

If arguing with me is a waste of your time,why not just stop?:duh:

Quote:

---

We don't need to spend tax dollars on putting people in jail for every little transgression.

---

I agree. How about, instead of arresting, we just ticket people for inconsiderate smoking? Jail would only be necessary for habitual offenders, those who refuse to get the message from having to just pay fines. Sound okay to you?

Quote:

---

Sensible adults can work things out on their own in conscious communities without much help.

---

True, but irrelevant here. We're not talking about sensible adults. We're talking about people who aren't very adult, who are so senseless as to impose their poisonous smoke on others in public. Manifestly, they need some external "help" to behave responsibly.

I think the City council favors a heavy police presence because it makes money for Sebastopol as more tickets are issued.

I don't know if this is true, however. Does anyone know the numbers, of how much revenue is generated for Sebastopol, versus the costs of more police than needed, compared to other towns that are not overly policed?

Several people on this thread have suggested that Sebastopol is policed with unnecessary diligence because (a) the City Council wants to make money or (b) the police need to arrest people to justify their employment. In the past, the cops have also been accused of being on power trips, selective racism, selective persecution of young people or Hopmonk patrons, preparing us for an Orwellian police state, etc. etc.

Well, I won't dispute that we could all come up with variants on "Why aren't they out there fighting serious crime?" and "What a silly thing for a minor offense!" It's also quite true that one nasty encounter can change your perspective radically. What worries me, though, is the blanket judgment on *motive.*

Is it remotely possible that these officers are doing what they're doing because it's their job to do it, i.e. enforcing the law? Is selective enforcement what we really want -- meaning if the officer likes your looks he'll let you off the hook? Is a democracy working best when its laws -- the ones we don't like -- are enforced selectively or not at all? Are police attracted to a high-stress and often shitty profession because it's an easy way to make a buck?

I think there's a huge problem in this country in the relation between police and community. Cops, at least in most urban areas, feel under siege, increasingly divorced from the people they're serving, and that siege mentality, not to mention the armaments gradually making them into an army, results in crazy acts that widen the gulf. We haven't got there yet in a town like Sebastopol, and I hope we don't. But I don't think it's helpful to impute motives to the police -- on no evidence whatever -- that automatically widens the gulf.

As for "minor" offenses, there might indeed be a more consistent system of warnings, etc., though as with the immediate smoking issue, we'll certainly have disagreements about what constitutes "minor." But again, I'm just speaking to the issue of ascribing the worst possible motives to people who are already doing a difficult job.

Cheers—
Conrad

No disrespect intended, but I hardly think that Sebastopol police are in a comparatively high stress job. SFPD , yeah, definitely. And regardless of motive, increasing the police force to enforce nonsmoking laws is still a ridiculous waste of resources.

Sebastopol man convicted on pot charge based on cash in trunk
By PAUL PAYNE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Friday, September 27, 2013 at 2:48 p.m.
It turns out you can’t drive around with a large amount of weed-infused cash in your car.
Jurors on Friday convicted a Sebastopol man of possessing proceeds from the sale of marijuana in a case in which police pulled him over with $47,000 in his trunk but none of the odoriferous green bud.
The panel apparently was swayed by police testimony that the smell was so strong inside William David Bush’s black Mercedes-Benz that the only logical conclusion to draw was that the money came from a recent drug transaction.
Other evidence collected from the car included a hand-written ledger describing what prosecutors believed was various marijuana strains as well as fine particles of pot on the floorboards.
“The odor was so overwhelming that one of the officers said he could smell it from across the road,” prosecutor Sharmalee Rajakumaran said after the verdict was announced.
Bush offered various explanations for the money including that it came from his ATM business and that his mother had given it to him. He was taken into custody in court and faces a maximum four years in jail at his Oct. 24 sentencing.
He represented himself in the two-day trial, rejecting initial prosecution offers to drop the felony charge if he forfeited the money.
Bush was driving on Bennett Valley Road Oct. 6, 2012 when he was pulled over by a CHP for an alleged traffic violation.
The smell led to a search of his trunk. Officers found 10 stacks of cash sealed in plastic, tucked inside clothing in a suitcase.

The money had picked up the smell of marijuana — a common occurrence in major pot deals, officers said.
Receipts for items associated with an outdoor growing operation were found in the car along with stubs from money orders favored by drug dealers to launder cash, police testified.
A search of Bush’s bank records showed $113,000 in cash deposits over a two-year period. There were no payroll checks, officers said.
(You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 568-5312 or [email protected].)


from The New Yorker- Aug 12 &19, 2013
A Reporter at Large
Taken
by Sarah Stillman
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/..._fact_stillman

The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing. It enables authorities to confiscate cash or property obtained through illicit means, and, in many states, funnel the proceeds directly into the fight against crime. But the system has also given rise to corruption and violations of civil liberties. Over the past year, many have expressed concern that the state laws designed to go after high-flying crime lords are routinely targeting the workaday homes, cars, cash savings, and other belongings of innocent people who are never charged with a crime.

(the rest of this article is worth reading)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

I think the City council favors a heavy police presence because it makes money for Sebastopol as more tickets are issued.

I don't know if this is true, however. Does anyone know the numbers, of how much revenue is generated for Sebastopol, versus the costs of more police than needed, compared to other towns that are not overly policed?

---

I think it's cuz the Masons & the New World Order have some deep roots in this area. They tarred & feathered Jewish chicken farmers (so called Communists) who organized Latino farm workers in the 1930s.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by misha77:

No disrespect intended, but I hardly think that Sebastopol police are in a comparatively high stress job. SFPD , yeah, definitely. And regardless of motive, increasing the police force to enforce nonsmoking laws is still a ridiculous waste of resources.

---

Forgive me for being ignorant, but what do the Masons and the New World Order have to do with local law enforcement? ... and what facts led you to voice this opinion? ... I've heard this stated before and I'm just wondering if there's proof of this ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

I think it's cuz the Masons & the New World Order have some deep roots in this area. They tarred & feathered Jewish chicken farmers (so called Communists) who organized Latino farm workers in the 1930s.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Forgive me for being ignorant, but what do the Masons and the New World Order have to do with local law enforcement? ... and what facts led you to voice this opinion? ... I've heard this stated before and I'm just wondering if there's proof of this ...

---

It's the modern equivalent of the Spanish inquisition... nobody expects the Masons and the New World Order. Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....