“Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America”, CATO Institute, 7/17/2006

[jody]

The full report, 103 pages, in pdf format can be downloaded at the link below.

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

Overview

The typical SWAT team carries out its missions in battle fatigues: Lace-up, combat-style boots; black, camouflage, or olive-colored pants and shirts, sometimes with “ninja-style” or balaclava hoods; Kevlar helmets and vests; gas masks, knee pads, gloves, communication devices, and boot knives; and military-grade weapons, such as the Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine gun, the preferred model of the U.S. Navy Seals. Other standard SWAT-team weaponry includes battering rams, ballistic shields, “flashbang” grenades, smoke grenades, pepper spray, and tear gas. Many squads are now ferried to raid sites by military-issue armored personnel carriers. Some units have helicopters. Others boast grenade launchers, tanks (with and without gun turrets), rappelling equipment, and bayonets.19

Paramilitary raids are generally carried out late at night, or just before dawn. Police are technically bound by law to “knock and announce” themselves, and give occupants time to answer the door before forcing entry. But as will be discussed in this study, that requirement is today commonly either circumvented through court-sanctioned loopholes, ignored completely with little consequence, or only ceremoniously observed, with a knock and announcement unlikely to be noticed by anyone inside.

Police generally break open doors with a battering ram, or blow them off their hinges with explosives. Absent either, police have pried doors open with sledgehammers or screwdrivers, ripped them off by attaching them to the back ends of trucks, or entered by crashing through windows or balconies. After an entryway is cleared, police sometimes detonate a flashbang grenade or a similar device designed to disorient the occupants in the targeted house. They then enter the home under its cover. SWAT teams have entered homes through fire escapes, by rappelling down from police helicopters, and by crashing through second-story windows. Once police are inside, the occupants are quickly and forcefully incapacitated. They’re instructed to remain in the prone position, generally at gunpoint, while police carry out the search warrant. Any perceived noncompliance is typically met with force, which can potentially be lethal, depending on the nature of the noncompliance.

The report paints a dismal picture of the growing SWAT mentality and helps explain forces behind many incidents discussed in DU threads.

Obviously someone in the White House and Congress believe the war on drugs is so dangerous that LEO needs automatic weapons, grenades, armored vehicles, helicopters, and other military special operation equipment.

Blackwater is being investigated for stockpiling automatic weapons with sheriff departments and those weapons could be used to equip Blackwater and other mercenary forces if the President declared martial law.

Congress seriously weakened the Posse Comitatus Act allowing a president to use military force for domestic law enforcement.

IMO even though the above events may have occurred innocently, together they pose a threat for We the People who could lose our freedom in an instant.

[virginia mountainman]

1. Great Post Jody!!

K&R!

[tularetom]

2. The police may protect you against gangs

but who will protect you against the police. This is why the founding fathers envisioned the need for the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution.

There was an elderly couple around here that had their door busted down because somebody got an address wrong. The incident had a tragic ending when the 80+ grandmother suffered a coronary and died en route tho the hospital. The city manager and police chief issued an apology to the surviving husband and children of the dead woman.

I believe we have more to fear from authoritarian republicans who support this kind of action. Especially now that Heller has reaffirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

[tburnsten]

3. I'm not so sure that party affiliations

have much of anything to do with this sort of police behavior. In fact, authorization for this sort of thing usually comes from the admin types, who are political animals and tend to have a strong inclination towards authoritarianism, and tend to disapprove of civilian gun ownership. I think authoritarianism in general is what needs to be avoided, and I really don't see either party as having a leg up on the other where that is concerned. Look at Dianne Fienstein and the current administration. Both firmly believe that they know what is best for everybody in the country, and make no bones about it.

[aspergris]

4. Swat Teams

Have the same problem (on a smaller scale) that govt. org's have in general. They seek to justify their existence and expand their power. Naturally, they advocate (specifically the administrators) to be utilized on many warrants and incidents where the public would be better served by having patrol, or other units take care of. Undoubtedly the invention of, and use of SWAT has saved many many lives and injuries - cops, citizens and suspects alike. But using SWAT in many situations where they are currently used is overkill and can escalate as much as de-escalate. Again, the SWAT teams and their political friends in administration want to justify their existence, so they will overstate the necessity of their use. Smaller dept's that don't have full-time SWAT will see their SWAT units try to justify full-time status by claiming they are needed in many situations where they are not.

[iverglas]

32. quel really truly amazing twaddle

Look at Dianne Fienstein and the current administration. Both firmly believe that they know what is best for everybody in the country, and make no bones about it.

You actually sound like you think that "what is best for everybody in the country" is actually connected in some way with the things that Bush and his administration do.

Surely you're not really that confused, are you???

[tburnsten]

36. I think they are equally wrong.

[iverglas]

40. well that just made enormous sense

Not.

Guess you didn't feel like addressing what I actually said -- which was that what you had said was complete bullshit. Oh well.

[tburnsten]

42. I said you said

"Look at Dianne Fienstein and the current administration. Both firmly believe that they know what is best for everybody in the country, and make no bones about it.

You actually sound like you think that "what is best for everybody in the country" is actually connected in some way with the things that Bush and his administration do.

Surely you're not really that confused, are you???"


I actually sound like I don't believe either Dianne Fienstein or G.W. are good for their offices. Nice try ma'am.

[iverglas]

44. oh my head

I actually sound like I don't believe either Dianne Fienstein or G.W. are good for their offices. Nice try ma'am.

Actually, you actually sound like you said what you actually said.

Look at Dianne Fienstein and the current administration. Both firmly believe that they know what is best for everybody in the country, and make no bones about it.

Which doesn't sound remotely like you are saying / purporting to think it sounds like.

Well, maybe to a deaf garden slug in the centre of one o' them tornados ...

[tburnsten]

46. What I said sounds exactly like what I mean

"Look at Dianne Fienstein and the current administration. Both firmly believe that they know what is best for everybody in the country, and make no bones about it"

doesn't sound or read like I am in support of either one of those assclowns.


Try again ma'am.

[iverglas]

47. are you really this thick?

Or do you just play this thick on DU?

[tburnsten]

48. I'm not a lawyer

But I play one onstage every so often

[iverglas]

31. "around here" would be ...?

I tried googling

california woman died police raid

but my efforts bore no fruit. Perhaps you could pinpoint time and place more closely?


One we do remember here is this one from Georgia:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355796,00.html

ATLANTA — A former Atlanta police officer on trial for a botched drug raid that led to the death of a 92-year-old woman said Wednesday he went along with a cover-up because he felt threatened by his fellow officers.

Kathryn Johnston was shot 39 times as plainclothes narcotics officers busted into her house using a "no-knock" warrant on Nov. 26, 2006. ...

... Tesler was in the backyard of Johnston's home during the raid, during which Johnston fired one shot from a pistol as police were breaking down her door. She did not hit any of the officers.

Oh hell. Maybe if she hadn't shot at the cops she would have died of a heart attack anyway.

[tburnsten]

38. Maybe

no knock warrants served by plainclothes officers are almost guarunteed to result in innocent deaths? How is anyone supposed to know who is kicking in their door when they give no warning? Were the officers incapable determining that she was no threat at some point before the 39th round hit her?

You seem to be going well out of your way to make excuses for the officers who effectively murdered a woman pushing a century and then lied to cover it up.

[iverglas]

41. were you wanting to answer the question I asked someone else?

Or just puke up some more falsehoods?

I don't think I seem to you to be doing what you state I seem to be doing at all. You seem to be pretending. You seem to have some reason for doing that. I wonder what it could be.

Your choice, no skin off my nose either way.

[tburnsten]

43. Yeah, "maybe she shouldn't have shot at the cops"

wasn't a massive misrepresentation of what happened at all :eyes:


She responded to her door being kicked in by some strange men the same way she would have responded to anyone kicking her door in, and the police, who wouldn't have been fired at if they had just knocked and served the warrant properly, overreacted. Your agenda is that citizens should not be armed for personal protection, and misrepresenting the situation to somehow make it not the officers fault they ventilated a 92 year old woman after kicking in her door unannounced is about par for the course.

[iverglas]

45. sooooooo many people

seem to expect that somebody other than the cops is gonna come along en masse and kick their doors down.

It must happen an awful lot. People all over the US, getting their doors kicked down by ... burglars? ... multiple times a day. Obviously. That's why somebody who notices his/her door being kicked down automatically assumes it's ... burglars?

In the case of the elderly woman to whom I referred, the plain fact is that she would not have been shot by anyone if she had not shot at someone. Perhaps a Kellermann Award should be instituted.

Think on it. If the people kicking in her door WERE bad guys, WOULD THEY NOT HAVE SHOT HER TOO?

[pnorman]

5. Here's an interesting interactive map from that site:

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

pnorman

[jody]

6. Many thanks. n/t

[pnorman]

8. You're welcome!

The important thing to bear in mind here, is that the Cato Institute is a right-wing funded think tank. That's generally anathema to most if not all here on DU, and usually triggers a knee-jerk response, as well as condemnation of ANYTHING on their agenda.

I've been an avowed "lefty" from about age 18 (1948) and am not ready to recant. But if I may offer an opinion distilled from all those years, it would be this: NOT ALWAYS, are those on the "other side" "evil" or even deliberately "deceitful". Blinded by many causes, they still seek "goodness" as they know it, and are repulsed by "injustice". "Altruism" is in enough DNA patterns to balance the "survival at ANY cost" instinct. Otherwise the human race would be FINISHED (and with Good Riddance!).

It's for that reason that I read Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, and even Pat Buchanan. It's the "morally neutrals" (Stalinists & the others on the Right) that I deeply distrust.

pnorman

[jody]

9. I was reluctant to post the report because of its CATO origin but the authors were objective and

their observations tied in perfectly to several dozen recent DU threads.

I optimistically believed that a few DUers would read the report for its substantive value and ignore the CATO stamp.

Looks like my optimism paid off.

[WWFZD]

10. From an avowed libertarian

and Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul fan who's voted mostly Republican until recently, thanks for bringing this article to my attention.
As one who's railed against this despicable authoritarian practice for years, glad to see CATO taking it on.
Let me add what I enjoy about the gungeon. Until I stumbled across this joint I didn't realize there were so many informed, articulate 2A supporters on the left side of the spectrum. I think posters such as Jody, SteveM, Krispos... (just to name a few off the top of my head) detest the the far left and the far right equally, and as much as I do.
I can read the same outstanding posts in defense of the 2A as I could find on Gunbroker... minus the racism and statist philosophy.

[pnorman]

12. Here's the Antiwar webpage of the Randolph Bourne Institute:

http://antiwar.com/ On a "left" to "right" continuum, both are well represented. Clearly, another dimension is needed to accurately classify those writers, and here it is: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Randolph Bourne was an intellectual from the early 20th century, and is regarded by most as essentially an anarchist. Here's his Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne Check out his online writing at that site. Here's from one his essays, "The State": http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

pnorman

[iverglas]

34. just for fun, maybe anyone preening him/herself as "on the left"

could take the political compass test for us.

I know very well what the results of any honest answers will be. They'll be to the right of Genghis Khan on the axis that considers issues that matter to ordinary people, while being waaaaay "libertarian" because of their firm belief that nobody's the boss of them.

[pnorman]

54. Here's my score from several years ago:

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.92

I've always considered myself of the "left", although I never considered it as "preening". But when I came upon that Political Compass Test, a lot was made clear. I hadn't tried to retake it, since doing so was NOT recommended.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at; you seem to be describing a "RIGHT-Libertarian". But if you feel that my score wasn't "honest", please say so. Also, please take that test, and post your own score here.

pnorman

[iverglas]

33. why yes of course

Why would an avowed right-wing loonytarian NOT be happy to see the more right-wing if a tiny bit less loonytarian CATO Institute getting on board with his/her ideas??

Watch those sources!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

The Cato Institute is a non-profit think tank with strong libertarian leanings, headquartered in Washington, D.C. Cato states that it favours policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace."<1> Cato argues for the abolition of the welfare system, against the U.S. government pursuing an interventionist foreign policy, in favor of more relaxed immigration policies and for a more deregulated healthcare system.

I give up. How in the fuck could the US have a MORE deregulated healthcare system??


I think we all really know that anyone who thinks the enemy of his/her enemy is his/her friend is actually a moron.

The CATO Institute may oppose Bush / the Republican Party on some issues. So would Genghis Khan have.

[Duke Newcombe]

55. Um...by the way...where's YOUR score, again?

Here's the link, in case you missed it trying to score "gotcha" points:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Duke

[Malidictus Maximus]

11. Right along the lines of that great post; Malcom X said

that he trusted Goldwater more than Johnson. He explained that Goldwater was at least telling the truth about what he would do, while Johnson would say anything to get elected. That's a paraphrase, I'll try to dig out the original quote if need be.

[SteveM]

15. I've seen Cato forums on C-Span opposing the WOD (nt)

[iverglas]

35. and what might you have seen CATO saying

about funding the health care that drug users need, and about the minimum wage that would bring development to their communities, and the funding for schools and job training that their communities need if they are to have alternatives to drug use and drug trafficking?

Or does CATO just not give a shit about people mired in poverty, underdevelopment and addiction?

Yeah, I kinda think that's it. But you let us know if you have details.

[bossy22]

56. i think they do care

they just see a different way of getting to that end goal

most of us have the same end goal- reduce poverty and increase the quality of life- we have different beliefs on how to get there or what is the best method

you have a lot of pent up agression- you should try punching a pillow

[hootinholler]

7. Thanks for that.

Some light reading tonight.

-Hoot

[pipoman]

13. good post

I have felt that police wearing battle fatigues while making traffic stops as is sometimes seen, especially in smaller counties, is completely over the top. The whole paramilitary police thing needs to be abolished except in the most desperate of circumstances.

Except for the apprehension of serious fugitives there is seldom a good reason for this type of entry. Most people leave their property at least once per day. Execute a traffic stop using the same number of officers needed for this raid, then execute any warrants. Far safer for all involved.

[SteveM]

14. I've enjoyed this! The Patriot Acts founded on the W.O.D....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

This statement by Bush should say it all. I've been seen as a doom & gloom political speculator for years. Now folks realize what the War on Drugs, Inc., was about: a stalking horse for when it would be writ large as the Patriot Acts. This is what Bush wanted even before Iraq, this is what he has now, this is what he wants maintained. And the Democrats in Congress are aiding him.

[radioburning]

17. I went to Target the other day and...

In their pharmacy they had a huge sign that basically said "under the Patriot Act it is illegal to buy large quantities of anything with ephedrine"(used in the manufacture of crystal meth). I remember thinking "what does the manufacture of crystal meth have to do with terrorism?" The W.O.D. is stupid and wasteful.

[SteveM]

20. The W.O.D. has everything to do with Bush's PermaWar...

The very blueprint of the Patriot Acts comes from the W.O.D. where due process, the 4th Amendment, and reasonable sentencing were trashed and removed from the hands of duly elected and appointed judges. By equating, conflating and mixing up the W.O.D., Inc. and the W.O.T. you get PermaWar, both home and abroad, which justifies his authoritarian "unitary presidency" approach. The wars were not about oil. They were and ARE about social control and forcibly steering this country into an authoritarian regime in the future.

[jody]

21. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the most egregious abuse of power without constitutional authority.

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/forfeit/10838res20021018.html

[SteveM]

22. And based, at the federal level, on ADMIRALTY law...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri3CD7qDGIQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=asset+forfeiture+admiralty+law&source=web&ots=i7iHib9p1a&sig=yHffAWGfil0bm5u-FgkLwAhU3ZA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA46,M1

It would seem that the chapters I read above give the Feds jurisdiction with regards to admiralty law, but the states have recklessly abused their authority in similar seizures where admiralty law does not apply. And once again, some of the justification for extra-legal, extra-sovereign prisoner detention is based on -- voila! -- admiralty law.

[jody]

23. Darn you SteveM, now I've got to refresh my memory on admiralty law.

Have a nice afternoon, :hi:

[SteveM]

24. Thanks, Jody. And back at 'ya.

[pnorman]

30. I'd been going to sea for over a half century,

and had thereby spent most of my life under Admiralty Law. It's truly medieval, and had it not been for the struggle by the labor movement in decades past, living under it would have been all but unbearable. Here's from Wiki:

"Admiralty Courts were a prominent feature in causing the American Revolution. For example, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” refers to the practice of Parliament giving the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce The Stamp Act in the American Colonies. See the Stamp Act, March 22, 1765, D. Pickering, Statutes at Large, Vol. XXVI, p. 179 ff. (Clause LVII relates to jurisdiction in admiralty). Because the Stamp Act was unpopular, a colonial jury was unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. Since Admiralty Courts do not grant trial by jury, a colonist accused of violating the Stamp Act could be tried before a judge of the Admiralty Courts without a jury."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law

Thanks for pointing that out to me!

pnorman

[iverglas]

39. actually, I'd assumed

-- and on checking the book it seems I was right -- that the admiralty law-based aspect is the in rem procedure, no?

[pnorman]

49. I'm probably among the last in DU, to be able to give a useful reply to that.

All I can do is wait for someone else to respond to your (perhaps rhetorical?) query, and search the internet. Here's one 'hit':

Jurisdiction in rem
*
*
*
A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.

Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. Courts fell into the practice of styling a case not as "John Doe, Unknown owner of (Property)", but as just "Ex Parte (property)" or perhaps the awkward "State v. (Property)", usually followed by a notice by publication seeking claimants to title to the property. This last style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding, and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner.

The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the case unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.
*
*
*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_in_rem

pnorman

[iverglas]

50. not exactly rhetorical

I thought it was obvious that it was the in rem procedure being referred to. It didn't seem to be that obvious to some others. I thought perhaps I might help them out by pointing it out.

[pnorman]

52. "In Rem" is something I had occasionally heard, but had to Google to refresh my memory.

I imagine more than a few here on DU are in the same situation.

This may be the pertinent find: "The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the case unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited."

And Mucho Thanks to this thread for pointing out the connection to Admiralty Law.

pnorman

[iverglas]

53. just to clarify

I was responding to this statement:

"And once again, some of the justification for extra-legal, extra-sovereign prisoner detention is based on -- voila! -- admiralty law."

which I think is complete hash.

The admiralty law connection is to the in rem procedure -- which it should perhaps be clarified refers to proceedings against a thing, in the original instance a vessel. A vessel may be "arrested" and proceedings brought against it regardless of its ownership or registration, to recover amounts owing in connection with the vessel etc.

[iverglas]

37. yeah, har, way waaaay worse

than right to vote "forfeiture".

Ah, the priorities.

[iverglas]

51. is it not rather common in the US

for legislatures to attach provisions to bills to which they are completely unrelated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedrine

The House passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as an amendment to the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. Signed into law by president George W. Bush on March 6, 2006, the act amended the US Code (21 USC 830) concerning the sale of ephedrine-containing products.

The actual legislation that was amended was this:

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=120791428709+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13--DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part C--Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dispensers of Controlled Substances
Sec. 830. Regulation of listed chemicals and certain machines

Surely it would be more accurate for Target to say that under Title 21 of the United States code, it is illegal to ... etc. Although I wouldn't not quite sure Target even got that right, without carefully reading that legislation.

Do you normally take legal advice/opinion from Target?

[jody]

18. That's the conclusion I reached after reading the report and why I posted it. Have a great day!

:hi:

[radioburning]

16. Ever watch that "Dallas SWAT" show on cable?

Typical reality show ala "Deadliest Catch" except it's about the Dallas SWAT team. They go around wrecking house after house saying "the suspect wasn't here tonight. We'll get him the next time." It's like watching Reno 911, except it isn't funny. If it's that important, why don't you have the location on surveillance? When you smash up three houses in 3 nights looking for one suspect, who pays for that? The poor, old black lady living on social security who's doors and windows you just battery-rammed in? I'm all for catching criminals, but do we need an army of stormtroopers leaving a trail of destruction to do it? Very Orwellian.

[jody]

19. SWAT's record using no-knock warrants to find drugs is not much better than Dubya's use of preemptiv...

war to find WMD.

The scary thing is both programs proceed from the same neocon mindset epitomized by Bush/Cheney.

[radioburning]

26. I know it's a lot to ask but...

If Obama gets in he'd have a lot on his plate to deal with, but maybe after everything settles down he could dismantle some of this W.O.D./W.O.T bureaucracy and para-military police force

[jody]

27. I join you in that hope. n/t

[SlipperySlope]

25. Even worse; the poisonous "SWAT mentality" has tainted policing as a whole.

[jody]

28. Agree, the report makes that point over and over. n/t

[jody]

29. Aug 1999, SWAT murdered Marion Paz in botched raid, tries to keep $10,000 via asset forfeiture laws

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America, page 58

Mario Paz. On August 9, 1999, 20 police officers from the El Monte, California, SWAT team conducted a late-night raid on the home of 65-yearold Mario Paz. By the end of the raid, Paz had been fatally shot in the back by police. The police version of events changed several times from the night of the raid. Police first said Paz was armed. They next said he wasn’t armed but was reaching for a gun. Their final account was that Paz was reaching not for a gun but to open a drawer where a gun was located.

Paz was unarmed when he was shot. Police later revealed that they had conducted the raid after finding the Paz address on the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and an old cell phone bill of suspected drug dealer Marcos Beltran Lizarraga (charges against Lizarraga were subsequently dropped, in part because the videotape that was supposed to contain a recording of the search of his home turned up blank).379 As mentioned earlier, one El Monte police official would later say that anticipated “proceeds” from the Paz family in asset forfeiture also played a part in the raid.

The Paz family explained that Lizarraga had lived next to them in the 1980s and had convinced Mario Paz to let him receive mail at their residence after he moved. Three weeks after the raid, the El Monte Police Department announced that they had no evidence that anyone in the Paz family was involved in any illicit drug activity, nor did the SWAT team have any reason to think so on the night Paz was shot.380

During the raid, police seized more than $10,000 in cash and announced plans to claim the money for themselves via asset forfeiture laws. Police backed off those plans when the Paz family proved the money to be their life savings.