Return to Transcripts main page


Dangerous Winter System About To Slam Northeast; NFL Says Evidence Suggest Some Of The Footballs Thrown By Tom Brady In AFC Championship Game Were Underinflated; Deadly Police Shootings Draw Public Attention; Vaccinating as Civil Duty; IRS Confiscating Money without Any Crime Having Been Committed

Aired January 23, 2015 - 20:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening and thanks for joining us.

We begin tonight with a big, snowy icy dangerous system that is about to hit the northeast but already caused big trouble as far west as the Rio Grande.

As always, we got Chad Myers crunching the numbers and putting it all together for us. He joins us from the weather center -- Chad.

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: So this storm started Wednesday in Texas. They had a foot of snow in Amarillo and it moved to the east where it wasn't as cold. So now we are getting all rain here at Atlanta and Charlotte and Roanoke. But as this storm turns to the left, it is going to encounter colder air. It is going to encounter Pennsylvania, and it is going to encounter New York City, it is going to encounter the Blue Rigde Parkway. Higher elevations, colder temperatures. This is where the snow will be, not just the rain.

I-95 pretty much a rain event, especially east of it. But if you go from i-95 in New York right on down to Philadelphia, and even to Wilmington and Baltimore, that is where the rain/snow line is going to be. To the left or to the west, that is where it is colder. That is where it was snow.

To the east, that is where it will rain. And in the middle, it will do a little bit of (INAUDIBLE), it will rain, it will snow, it will sleet, there are freezing rain, and then change over to snow and then finally stop.

So the big story is how bad does the weather get, how bad does travel get? Well, the good news it's Saturday. So we are not going see the real travel problems we could see if it was Monday or Tuesday. Although there is small storm for Monday. I will get to that.

Right along I-95, that's the demarcation line to the east as rains to the west it also felt. And in the middle, right along I-95 and this 10 miles, we decide it's going to do a lot of each. Rain, snow, sleet, mix all kind together.

But back out to the west, Allen Town, Bethlehem, to that Delaware water gap, that's all six inches plus and even towards western Boston. You are seeing the butchers (ph) eight inches plus of snow there. You get closer to the shore, closer to the warmer air, closer to the water. You will get all rain.

Now, there is one more threat I didn't talk about here. It's not snow. There's the potential for some spotty ice to develop overnight tonight. And if that happens and you're driving tomorrow morning before the daylight, you may not see it, you may not realize it's there, so be careful of the ice accumulation that could be bad in some spots. So it doesn't take much. Eighth of an inch makes the car completely out of control. So watch that.

And then our storm system for Monday, crisscrosses this storm right over Philadelphia. A three inch snow maker, but could be more of a problem, I guess because it's Monday, and not a stay at home and watching snow Saturday -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Chad, thanks very much.

Now, let's jump back into the story that depending who you ask, either a juicy scandal, bad joke or both.

The NFL today made it official, the league says the evidence suggests some of the footballs that Tom Brady threw in last weekend's AFC championship game were, in fact, under-inflated. As for who, if anyone, took the air out of them or put too little in, that remains unknown.

Patriots head coach Bill Belichick says it is not me so that Tom Brady, but either one has the last word which is why Rachel Nichols is here to tell us more.

So the NFL today, exactly what did they say?

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yes. Well, they were basically confirmed a lot of the reporting out here. And this is what we know now officially.

The game balls from each team and remember, each team gets to provide their own footballs for their own offense, were brought to the official's office at the correct time a couple hours before the game and they were, in fact, tested by the officials and both team's footballs were found to be in code, totally fine.

Sometime between then and during the first half, the Patriots' footballs had a lot less air in them. The Colts footballs stayed the same. You start to think, I don't know if weather is going to be as much of a factor which is sort of one the concerns floated out there. They confirm now, however, that then when they swapped the footballs out at halftime and gave the Patriots new footballs, those footballs stay inflated properly. One more factor that probably takes weather out of the equation.

So that's some of what they laid out today. They also laid out a little bit more out about their investigations. They said that they have already interviewed 40 people, some in the Patriots organization, many outside the Patriots organization. Just to get the sense of comparison from other teams. How they handle their footballs and procedures.

Now, Tom Brady said that nobody has talked to him yet which raised a lot of eyebrows. In fact, there's no plan on the Patriots who said anyone talked to him yet. So we are wondering when investigators will get to the Patriots players. That remains to be seen.

COOPER: And when you say the refs did test the balls, not just holding them, squeezing them, it's actually --

NICHOLS: There's an air gauge they use. Yes, there's an official procedure for it and there was a question of, did they really do it? The NFL came out today and said, yes, they did.

COOPER: Right. So now the NFL issued their statement, Robert Kraft, the Patriots' owner, he issued a statement as well.

NICHOLS: Yes. He just said the Patriots will show transparency, that they will completely cooperate with the investigation. And it's interesting too that the NFL revealed exactly what the investigation will entail and that it will not only be an NFL investigator, they also hired an outside forensic company that specializes in emails, phone calls, text messages, things like that.

And they are also going to include Ted Wels, you might remember the criminal attorney, an outside counsel but he has been hired by the league. And he's the one who led the investigation as the Miami Dolphins bullying scandal.

That's relevant because he was pretty thorough in that investigation. It is also relevant because it took him three months to complete that investigation. So we knew that this probably was not going to get completed before the super bowl, now we have a pretty and strong indication this will take quite some time to complete.

And that's key. Because what that does now is let Bill Belichick and Tom Brady and frankly, Roger Goodell, when he hold his annual press conference before the super bowl say, hey, this is an ongoing investigation. I can't really talk about this that much anymore. And it's clear that desk for the NFL to let people focus on the game.

COOPER: One of the things that's been confusing to me is that I mean, the colts linebacker who is reported to have noticed the deflated ball when he intercepted a pass, yesterday, he said that was not the case. That it didn't come from him. So I guess the question is, how did this whole thing start if not with him?

NICHOLS: Yes. It's a little bit of parsing there. And the original report said when he intercepted the ball, he brought it to the sideline to the equipment staff which is standard, a lot of players want to keep the game ball, take it home with them. The equipment staff saves it for them. They painted it up real nice. But when he took it to the equipment staff, the equipment staff noticed it.

So the original story was never he noticed it. It was that when after he intercepted the ball, the equipment staff notices it. But it was interesting that he went out of his way to make the comment and it gives a little window into the culture here.

He basically was telling everyone, hey, not me, I wasn't tattling, I wasn't doing sour grapes, I'm not the tattle tale here. And in the NFL culture, there's definitely a code of don't tell, it's a fraternity. When the Patriots convicted of spy gate in 2007, that was set off because a former Patriots assistant coach who was then the head coach of the Jets, Eric Mangini basically told by his former boss. He knew that they take (INAUDIBLE) from having work there.

What's interesting was, yes, Bill Belichick was that and fined for spy gate but Eric Mangini faced a huge backlash in the football community for telling on him. So as we go forward in this investigation and investigators try to figure out what happened here, they may find more closed ranks than they expect.

COOPER: Rachel, stick around because I want to bring in "Boston Globe" NFL reporter Ben Volin, also FOX sports analyst Mike Pereira, former vice president officiating for the NFL.

So Ben, I know you have been talking to NFL sources. What are they telling you about the way these game balls were inspected before the game?

BEN VOLIN, REPORT, BOSTON GLOBE: That's right. I spoke to an NFL source today with direct knowledge of the process. And he said that not only were all 12 footballs probably inflated. And in fact, both teams brought double the amount of footballs, so 24 in each side, 48 total, because inclement weather game, a lot of rainy weather in Foxborough the other night.

So the official personally tested all 48 footballs with the pressure gauge and all 48 passed inspection, so at the start of the game, we know that the balls were properly inflated to at least 12.5 and at halftime, they weren't.

COOPER: And Mike, if the officials, I mean, definitely checked the balls with an air pressure gauge, then is there any other option here other than someone from the Patriots doing this?

MIKE PEREIRA, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OFFICIATING FOR THE NFL: Well, I mean, I think that's the question now on probably why there is such a delay here, because the league has got to do so much due diligence here. I mean, they have to check, you know, the climatic conditions to see if the cold weather, you know, would cause the football to lose some amount of pressure. They are going to test balls in certain situations to, you know, either prove that or discount that.

You know, Anderson, to me, this whole delay really indicates to me that the officials are off the hook and they're going further to try to figure out what happened. You know, and also, Anderson, proves to me that the league is taking this very seriously because if they were just going to throw a $25,000 fine in this, you know, they would have figured out something, and done it and gone away.

But, you know, to me, they're looking at and to me, they already must have made the decision that if they can prove this, then they are going to go with the draconian fine of maybe $500,000 again like spy gate and first round draft choice. But if they do that, they've got to prove everything.

Look at, in spy gate, they had the tape, I mean, and then there was the accusations of the tape during the walk through prior to the 2007 super bowl of the Rams. Nobody had that tape. There was not a tape so nothing happened there. But if they are going to actually take draft choices and fine up to $500,000, then they're going to uncover everything. And I think it's going to take a long amount of time for them to do that.

COOPER: And Ben, in terms of the investigation, what more are you learning about the NFL is actually conducting it?

VOLIN: That's the thing. You know, the NFL certainly has a little bit of a credibility problem given the way that they handled the Ray Rice situation. But so far, the Patriots have given them full cooperation. They've interviewed approximately 40 employees and part- time employees. The Patriots have given over cell phone evidence and security tape evidence to help the NFL with their investigation, full compliance from the Patriots so far.

We'll see how long this takes. I agree with Mike. I think it's going to take a while because they really want to get the proof and they want to nail this down if they're going to act on the Patriots.

COOPER: And Rachel, very quickly, I mean, to the point that Mike raised on the weather as you pointed out, if the weather was the issue, it's hard to understand why it wouldn't have affected the colts balls as well.

NICHOLS: Yes. I mean, There's a slight possibility there's a window, right, and the Patriots football for the very bottom of that window and the Colts' footballs were a little higher in the window and there was a pressure drop due to the weather, then maybe it only affects, you only fall out that window for the Patriots.

But that's a tough argument to buy if it has got colder in the night in the second half, the footballs ended up fine on both sides. And it is also a tough argument to buy if the reports were true and it was two full psis down, because there is only one psi that is within regulation. So the math there doesn't quite work out.

Look. We don't know yet what happened. We don't have the proof. You can't convict without proof, but some of the excuses starting to fall in. We'll just have to see what happens.

COOPER: Rachel Nichols, thanks. Ben Volin, great to having you again and Mike Pereira as well. Thank you very much.

Coming up next, we will talk to super bowl champion -- well, what you heard from the super bowl champion Troy Aikman who says he has no doubt that Tom Brady intentionally broke the rules. We are going to talk to another for star quarterback (INAUDIBLE), what does he thinks about those remark. Bray took his job as the Patriots quarterback. After all, his take on the allegations coming up tonight. And later, new developments in this video tape police shooting. Plus,

compelling look at why what the camera sees can sometimes be deceiving and deadly.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your pockets real quick. Don't have anything in here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no. My smokes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Nothing in here, though?



COOPER: By an informal estimation, roughly 14.6 million dinner table arguments have erupted over whether Tom Brady is a cheater or not. Of course, that's completely in precise. Since his news conference today. 7.3 million on whether or not to believe him when he says he had nothing to do with deflating those footballs. People disagree on those two questions.

And in the larger questions, namely, should this even be the big deal that's is obviously become to so many people? Fans disagree and so does Tom Brady's former fellow quarterbacks.

Troy Aikman for one has been critical. A different view now from Drew Bledsoe, who is New England's top quarterback until he got hurt in his back and Tom Brady stepped in. These days among other things, he is a wine maker in Washington state. We spoke earlier today.


COOPER: Drew, you know Tom Brady. You watched the press conference. Do you believe what he does?

DREW BLEDSOE, FORMER PATRIOTS QUARTERBACK: One hundred percent. And there are number of reasons why.

Number one, let's just start with this. I know Tommy is a man of high character. He's not going to lie. There is no reason for him to lie. You know, Anderson, when you look at this thing, you know, if they were actually cheating, you know, the easiest thing to say, OK, you know, but yes, we did it. It is $25,000 fine, let's move on. Let's go forward.

There is no reason to continue on and try to, you know, cover something up. So I don't believe and there's anything to cover up.

The other things is when you look at the process, as a 14-year, you know, starting quarterback in the NFL, to grab the footballs, make sure they're OK, they go back in the bag, I never once in 14 years and knew what the air pressure was in the balls. I just knew the football felt right. That was it. That was end of the story. COOPER: So, I mean, if they were deflated or under-inflated, as a

quarterback, would you have known that? I mean, if it was under- inflated by two pounds, would you have been able to tell that when it was in your hand?

BLEDSOE: You know, my good friend Damon here would actually went -- did an experiment. He went down. He works for the Washington Huskies. He grabbed the football. He had them blow it up to 13 pounds. He grabbed it and said it felt like a rock. And when they deflated it to 11 pounds, he said it felt like every other football he felt before in his life. It felt normal at 11, which is a pound and a half underneath the regular psi.

So what I really believe happened was these balls, these footballs that Tom selected, the referees grabbed them before the game, they felt them, they felt OK, they didn't stick a needle in them to check it out. And then halftime, somebody complained and then they went and checked it out found that they were light. And I think that's exactly simple as it is. And all of the sudden now, man, this thing has, you know, gained a life of its own. And now, you got people going on TV, and accusing Tom Brady of being a cheater and being a liar.

And it boils on slander man. I thought the story was funny. But it's not funny anymore. They're raking this guy and the rate over the Colts like he's a cheater and a liar and that's absolutely not what it is.

COOPER: Yes. I mean, two of the people who come out, former, as you know, former NFL quarterback Mark Brunell said he doesn't believe Brady, and Troy Aikman said much of the same. And I want to play for our viewers a little of Aikman said and then have you respond to it.

TROY AIKMAN, FORMER NFL PLAYER: So it's obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this or the balls that have been deflated, that doesn't happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen. I can assure you of that.

COOPER: I mean, is it your experience that the referees actually measure the air in the balls when they check out the balls before the game?

BLEDSOE: Yes, you know, the only experience I have with it is the high school level, Anderson, because I'm coaching. And what we do, you take the balls, the referees, they grabbed them, they feels them and if the football feels like it is the right pressure, then, they go with it. If it feels like it is the wrong pressure, then they have a needle and pump and they can adjust that.

But my sense is and my guess is that with the NFL referees, it's the same process. They grab the footballs, they say, OK, feels right. I don't think they stick a needle in each one before every game. I just don't think that probably happens.

Maybe it does, maybe I'm wrong. But I just think that this story, Anderson, I think it's a nothing story that has turned into an accusation of cheating and lying and I just really don't like it. It's not OK.

COOPER: If the balls were underinflated and somebody actually did that intentionally, it would be cheating. Would you think that's an important violation, do you think that's a story or is it just that you think a, Brady had nothing to do with it and that's -- therefore, it is not a story?

BLEDSOE: Yes. I think it's a. It's Tom Brady had nothing to do with it. The footballs he selected on Saturday felt like the right weight and that was it. And I really think that's the end of the story. And this thing is just grown to this crazy thing and has a life of its own. It's just that it's wrong and it needs to come to an end.

COOPER: I also just want to get your comment on Bill Belichick. Obviously, you played for him for years. You were a Patriots quarterback for years. I mean, you know of his style, his reputation for being a micromanager. If someone else on the Patriots staff deliberately did this, could it have happened without his approval?

BLEDSOE: Yes. No, I never had a head coach, including Bill Belichick, and then many of the head coaches that I played for, and there were many, none of them, you know, paid -- that wasn't their deal. It was the quarterbacks and the punters and the kickers that worked with the equipment staff and that was it. It was not something that any head coach spent any time on.

COOPER: Drew Bledsoe, it is great talking to you. Thanks so much for being on, Drew.

BLEDSOE: Anderson, thanks for taking the time, man.


COOPER: Well, as you can find out a lot more on this story and others on

Tonight just ahead, could you correctly size up this next situation if your life depended on it? take a look at this video. It looks like a routine conversation between a man and police. There was no apparent warning signs until the guy pulls the gun and kills the police officer he was talking to. Tell you what that video and others reveal about how unpredictable and how unexpectedly deadly police encounters can be. How did measles go from non-existent to a serious problem at Disneyland and a huge chunk of the country? Details on that ahead.


COOPER: And update now on the latest police shooting to make the headlines. The mayor of Bridgeton, New Jersey and leaders in New Jersey's NAACP, this evening is expressing confidence that local prosecutors can handle the case saying it's not necessary to hand it over to the state attorney general.

As you know, two officers, one white and one African-American shot and killed a suspect during a traffic stop late last month. Here's the video. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Show your hands. Don't you (bleep) move. Don't you (bleep) move. You're going to be (bleep) dead. I'm telling you. You reach for something, you're going to be (bleep) dead. I'm telling you. Keep your (bleep) hands right there. You reach for something, you're going to be (bleep) dead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's reaching. He is reaching.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Show me your (bleep) hand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, you're not. Don't (bleep) move. Don't you (bleep) move.


COOPER: That's only one example of what's quickly becoming a flood of new videos that doesn't always settle the arguments about whether a given shooting was justified. It does however in many cases show me a window of just how hard it can be to make the right call and how unpredictable these situations are.

As you'll see in this next report, it's not always easy in the moment to assess what is and what is not a threat. Sometimes, right up to the second when a police officer either kills or becomes a casualty.

More now from Randi Kaye.


RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tense moments at a gas station near Columbia, South Carolina. Sean Groubert, a highway patrol officer, has just pulled over a man. Watch what happens next.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I see please? Get out of the car!

KAYE: When the man turned back inside his car to get his license, the officer fired in an instant.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think so. I can't feel my leg. I don't know what happened. Why did you shoot me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well you dove headfirst back into your car.


KAYE: The victim, 35-year-old Lavar Jones, survived. Officer Groubert fired and charged with aggravated assault and battery.

In Billings, Montana, a police officer approaches four men sitting inside their car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hands up. All four of you, hands up. KAYE: Officer Grant Morrison appears to recognize one of them as a

suspect from an earlier shooting. He tells him he's making him nervous, then this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hands up. Hands on the (bleep). Get your hands up, I will shoot you. I will shoot you. Hands up. Hands up. Hands up. I will shoot you again. Hands up. Hands up. You (bleep) move, I'm going to shoot. Not (bleep) around.

KAYE: The man killed, it turns out, was unarmed but officer Morrison said he feared for his life because the man kept dropping his left hand despite the officer's warnings to keep his hands up. The shooting was ruled justifiable homicide.

In Arizona, this video from officer Tyler Stewart's body camera captures the last moments of his life. On it, a casual conversation between an officer and a man suspected of domestic violence. Officer Stewart doesn't even have his gun drawn. But watch what happens when the officer asks to frisk the man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Open your pockets real quick. Don't have anything in here?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no. No, my smokes.

KAYE: The video ends there just as the suspect pulled a .22 caliber revolver from his pocket firing six shots at the officer. Hit five times, the officer never had a chance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was a series of rounds fired at the time.



KAYE: The 24-year-old officer died at the hospital. The suspect, meanwhile, used the officer's weapon to take his own life.

Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.


COOPER: Join me now, legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, former defense prosecutor and criminal defense attorney Mark O'Mara who defended, of course, George Zimmerman and probably the most famously. Also with us is former NYPD officer and former secret service agent, Dan Bongino.

Dan, every time, I mean, a police officer pulls someone over, do they have to initially assume the person is armed?

DAN BONGINO, FORMER NYPD OFFICER: Always, Anderson. The only way to go home safely is to assume a worst case scenario every time. You have to remember, there's an asymmetry here of information, Anderson. The driver knows that the police officer is a police officer has a gun. The police officer knows absolutely nothing about the person in the car. Assume the worst and you'll go home alive.

COOPER: You -- I mean, you are looking that last case that we just saw, which was a domestic violence case where the office had a full conversation with the suspect for several minutes before the suspect and with the calm conversation, then all of the sudden the guy pulls out a gun and killed the officer, I assume that's precisely what -- I mean to me, that's a prime example of why police have to be so careful.

BONGINO: You do. And you're always taught, ironically in those videos, that they were both traffic stops in a domestic violence situation - or a domestic situation. Those are the two most dangerous scenarios, Anderson. Domestic violence because of the emotions involved and a vehicle stop because there's this 3,000 pound box of steel where you could secrete various weapons and items and the officer can't see them when he approaches it and that's why you see most of these videos in those two scenarios. COOPER: Mark, that assumption, though that anyone could be armed,

anyone could be a threat, I mean at times, it's got to lead to officers making these mistakes. I mean you look at the officer we just saw who shot the guy who was just getting his license like the officer had told him to do.

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it does. It's very difficult because we look at these in the cold light of day and say, here's what the officer did wrong, here's how he should have reacted differently or here's what the driver did right or did wrong. The problem with that is that we're all particularly human beings, as we just said, in a real fear situation, they don't know what's going on and they have to be trained for the worst. It's difficult for the one rule, if you look at all of those cases, and I understand why the officer was charged with aggravated assault and battery without a license, but other than that, in every case, it could have been much better resolved if everyone had listened to the officer's demands and orders.

COOPER: Sunny, what do you make of that? I mean if the standard for justifiably use of force, is that an officer believes they're in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and officers believe that they could be in that kind of danger every time they pull somebody over, it's obviously - I mean that is what makes it such a tricky situation.

HOSTIN: Well, and that's why when you look at the statistics, Anderson, most often with police officer involved shootings, those shootings are found to be justified pretty much every single time. We don't have enough, I think, statistics to show really what's going on and I would agree that while traffic stops are the most dangerous things that officers do, they are trained professionals and I think that what we're seeing is officers making these very quick decisions which clearly they must, but not necessarily trained well enough to deescalate situations. We're seeing over and over and over again unarmed, unarmed men, either shot and injured, or shot and killed. And something has to be done about that.

COOPER: Dan, in the situation where the video that we were just seeing, that dash cam video where the officers did kill the passenger, didn't kill the driver, he obeyed their instructions, I mean, a gun was found in the glove box. The officer did know this person in the passenger seat from prior arrests and this person had been arrested as a teenager, as a 13-year-old and served a significant amount of time for shooting the police officer or shooting at a police officer. Does knowledge of past criminal record, is that something that's always in an officer's mind and should it be? I mean if somebody has served their sentence and done their time, should their past behavior be something that affects an officer's interaction?

BONGINO: Well, yeah, but an officer is not a judge. He's not sentencing anyone to any prison sentence or guilty or not guilty. What he's trying to, to go home alive and make an arrest. I mean put yourself in the officer's shoes. Let's say you owned a deli in New York City and every person that came into your store, you could check their criminal record, which is a police officer does. And he falls over a car. If you knew a person coming in your store had a bulge in his waistband and had a record of criminal possession of a weapon, would you react differently, I think that when your audience watching, think about it that way, now you can see why police officers do react differently when there's a history of crime at the person they pull over.

COOPER: It's interesting, Mark, I mean there's such - you know, so much talk about the need for police dash cams or body cams and yet, in the case in New Jersey in the Garner case, the incidents were caught on camera, the footage doesn't necessarily tell you exactly what happens. It gives you some facts, but it doesn't capture everything.

O'MARA: The nice thing about a video, it is one more piece of evidence in a very confounding situation that we're trying to understand. And even though it may not show everything and I agree, in the Garner case, it seemed to show things that the grand jury didn't focus on, but having said that, I like the idea of having body cameras. We've been arguing for it for years and having dash cam, because at least it's evidence and it's forensic evidence.

And quite honestly, using - not open to interpretation as much. What's left if we don't have that type of evidence is memory, belief, and their interpretation of it. So it's a great tool for law enforcement, it's a great tool for defense attorneys.

COOPER: Mark O'Mara, I appreciate it. Sunny Hostin, Dan Bongino, thank you very much.

Coming up next on the program - the Disneyland measles outbreak is spreading. Starting, of course, the vaccine debate. Why some parents refuse to give their children the shots, ahead.

Also, the IRS took all the money from this restaurant owner, every dime, it did not charge with a crime and that was totally legal. A CNN investigation coming up.


COOPER: New information tonight on a recent measles outbreak started in of all places Disneyland and it's spreading with more than 55 cases of measles in seven states and Mexico. 15 years ago, the CDC declared measles eliminated in this country, but it's back. Look at this chart. Take a look at these numbers. The CDC says there were more than 600 cases of measles reported last year. That's a record high. It's grown so much because their parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Elizabeth Cohen reports.


JENNY MCCARTHY, ACTRESS AND MOTHER OF AUTISTIC CHILD: Parents need to know, what is being injected into their child?


MCCARTHY: Without a doubt in my mind, I believe vaccinations triggered Evan's autism.

COHEN: Almost a decade ago, actress Jenny McCarthy became the spokeswoman for the anti-vaccination movement, a movement that's only grown stronger. Finding support among liberal, well-educated communities despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines. In California, for example, a study out this week shows low rates of vaccination in San Francisco and Marin County, both wealthy areas. In southern California, affluent areas in Los Angeles has had immunization rates that rival South Sudan's.

DR. WILLIAM SCHAFFNER, INFECTION DISEASE EXPERT: When parents choose not to vaccinate, other parents around them may have similar ideas and so what you get are pockets, groups of people who think the same and so you now have a cluster of children who are susceptible. All kind of living, and playing together, going to similar schools, houses of worship and the like. So, if that bad germ gets into that group, all of the sudden, whoosh, you'll have an epidemic.

COHEN: So, why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convinced the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am more willing to take the chance of her getting one of these, you know, rare viruses or diseases than give her these side effects of these vaccines which a lot of the times is autism.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't see that there's ever an acceptable time to inject a known toxin, a known poison, a heavy metal into the body of a 6 pound and up child in order to help save their life through a vaccine. No poison is safe. No poison can be given to a child and it's OK.

COHEN: The supposed link between autism and vaccines was championed by British scientist Andrew Wakefield, but his paper was discredited, and redacted from the "British Medical Journal" in 2011.

ANDREW WAKEFIELD: The story wasn't a lie. The findings that we made have been replicated in five countries around the world.

COOPER: Sir, that's not true. You've been offered the chance to replicate your study and you've never taken anybody up on that. You have had plenty of opportunity to replicate your study.

WAKEFIELD: Excuse me. Getting you - I'm telling you that this work has been replicated in five countries around the world.

COHEN: That was not true, but even so, many parents still believe Wakefield was right. Still believe the government is lying to Americans and still refused to vaccinate their children no matter what. Elizabeth Cohen, CNN reporting.


COOPER: Let's dig deeper on this. Our chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta j?ins us along with Art Kaplan, he is the director of the division of Medical Ethics at NYU-Langone Medical Center in New York City. So, Art, you believe that parents that don't have their kids vaccinated, that they are being unethical. Explain that.

ART CAPLAN, NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CTR. DIR., DIV. OF MEDICAL ETHICS: Well, I think they're really being unethical, Anderson, because they're putting people at risk who can't protect themselves. If you're less than 6 months of age, a newborn, you don't build immunity to vaccines, you can get the measles, you can get the flu, you can get whooping cough. These things can kill a newborn baby. Similarly, if you have an immune disease, if you're getting cancer treatment, transplant recipient, you get infected by one of these things, it can kill you. So you get vaccinated because it's a neighborly thing to do as much as it is a self-protection thing to do. It's the right thing to do as a good citizen, as a good member of our community. I think we spend too much time saying why should you get vaccinated, the real moral point is why should we get vaccinated?

COOPER: Sanjay, I mean babies are vaccinated for measles between six months and a year old. Meaning that our youngest kids, they are obviously the most vulnerable, what happens to a baby that young that gets the measles? Because a lot of moms we just saw in that video, they're putting, you know, air quotes up around and seem to doubt that it's serious.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's a serious infection. There's no question. As Art was saying, I mean it can cause a significant lung damage. These babies can end up in intensive care units. Sometimes requiring breathing machines, it can cause problems with the brain. I mean there's an association with different brain abnormalities, deafness, things like that that can be long term, even lifelong if you develop measles as a young child and also to just punctuate another thing that Art said, this idea of herd immunity. You sort of, if enough people, and they say with measles, over 90 percent of people are vaccinated, it does provide protection against young babies who have not yet received their vaccines or people who can't receive the vaccine because they may be allergic to the vaccine for some reason. So, it is both an individual as well as a public health sort of component to this, Anderson.

COOPER: And Art, I mean, despite no sound medical evidence to support them, there are still some in the medical community, doctors even, that are part of the anti-vaccination movement, right?

CAPLAN: Well, I think it's sad and I think they ought to check their own ethics out because you are basically promoting non-science. It reminds me, I hate to put it this way, Anderson, but there's a little bit of an analogy to climate sceptics and deniers and even Holocaust deniers. You can find people who disbelieve almost anything, I guess there are - running around, but the pediatrics society, the CDC, every international organization, WHO, everybody comes down out of the mainstream, on the view that vaccines are absolutely crucial to good health.

They don't have side effects that would make anybody discouraged from getting them. In other words, the bulk of the community says, hey, this really works and to have you, you know, follow the rumors of the Internet or listen to a celebrity when your kid's health is on the line, I think that is sad and to have somebody back that advice up who's a doctor or pediatrician I think is worse.

COOPER: But Sanjay, I mean what do you say to parents who point to rising rates of autism and no clear answers on it?

GUPTA: Well, the rates of autism do seem to be rising. It could be in part because we more broadly define autism, we are better at detecting at, there is more awareness of it, but even if you take those things into account, autism is probably rising, we don't know for sure why that is. It could be that children may be predisposed to it genetically, and then something in the environment triggers it. We don't know what it is, but we know what it is not and I think that's one of the important points. Vaccines do not cause autism and I know that there's been a lot of back and forth on this. I've been reporting on this issue for 13 years. People, it's remarkable how emotional this topic gets, but there have been plenty of studies now to look at this and people say, well, my child got these vaccines at this time and then shortly thereafter, started developing the symptoms of autism. It's heartbreaking to hear those stories but as they say, correlation does not equal causation. Vaccines don't lead to autism. I have three children. I got them vaccinated on schedule. I looked at the data, made that decision and I think other parents should as well.

COOPER: Sanjay, I appreciate it. You've been - Art Caplan as well.

Up next, the IRS raids a restaurant, seizes all of the money and never charges the owner with a crime. And wait until you find out what happened after Gary Tuchman reached out to the IRS.


COOPER: Over the past couple of nights, we've showed you how state and local authorities can take your money, take money from you with roadside traffic stops. The goal, police say, is to seize cash linked to crimes, but sometimes just the money is taken and no crimes ever charged. Tonight, you are going to see how the federal government can do the exact same thing. Take your money and leave you having to prove your money is innocent, that your money was gotten not through ill-gotten gains. Gary Tuchman now has the investigation.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: When business was hopping, the line outside the door of this now shutdown Mexican restaurant in northern Iowa was long, people clamoring to get in and Carole Hinders was in her element.

(on camera): Why do you love this restaurant so much?

CAROLE HINDERS, FORMER OWNER OF MRS. LADY'S: Because it was mine and I got to make the decisions, choose the food, make the food. It's what I wanted to do.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Mrs. Lady's Mexican restaurant did not take credit cards - cash only and local checks, but after owning the business for 37 years, Carole Hinders was getting tired. She was thinking of selling, when one day in the spring of 2013, two IRS agents showed up at her front door.

HINDERS: I looked at their badges. They came in and proceeded to tell me that they were here to let me know that they had confiscated all my money for my business bank account and closed it.

TUCHMAN (on camera): How much money?

HINDERS: It was approximately $33,000.

TUCHMAN (voice over): That's right. The IRS took all of her money. Every dime. But didn't charge her with a crime. The government claimed that because Carole had routinely deposited cash into her account under $10,000, it was suspicious. She had, they claimed, structured her deposits, to avoid the reporting requirement that deposits over $10,000 would trigger. There's a fancy term for what the government did. Civil asset forfeiture.

In the world of civil forfeiture. The government does not need you to be convicted of a crime before seizing your money. You don't even need to be charged with a crime. In civil forfeiture, you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until proven innocent.

And to this day, Carole Hinders has been charged with nothing. Idea behind civil asset forfeiture began in the drug wars of the early '80s. Seize the cash and property owned by bad guys and the criminal networks would suffer greatly. Federal and state authorities are allowed to use seized cash for themselves to make legitimate purchases and expenditures for their offices.

LARRY SALZMAN, CAROLE HINDER'S ATTORNEY: It violates the due process rights for Americans. It's just wrong. There's a simple premise that the government should not be taking money from people who have done nothing wrong, it should not be taking money from people who've not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime.

TUCHMAN: Attorney Larry Salzman works for the Institute for Justice and advocacy legal group in Washington. He's representing Carole Hinders free of charge.

(on camera): So, why are they picking on Carole?

SALZMAN: She's easy. Most people like Carole can't defend themselves. The government takes $33,000 from you, it will cost most people more money to get that back than what they've taken, so people just give up.

TUCHMAN (voice over): The IRS wouldn't talk on camera to CNN, but did issue a statement to us. Seeming to indicate it was backing off on at least some cases like Carole Hinders. "We recognize that small business in other taxpayers often make deposits under $10,000 without any intent to avoid the reporting requirements," the statement said. And it added, after conducting a review of the structuring cases, the IRS concluded that it will focus its limited resources on cases where evidence indicate that structured funds are derived from illegal sources. The Department of Justice is an overall charge of the program and officials there wouldn't talk on camera either, but they told CNN in the phone call that the program was vital and full of safeguards to protect those accused.

So what happened next? Only hours after we finished our interview with Carole Hinders, the government withdrew its complaint against her, but reserved the right to file it again some point down the road, and what looked like at least partly, the authorities trying to save face.

HINDERS: I don't feel it's a favor, but I feel it's a victory. And I think the most important thing is that we keep going on this civil forfeiture thing, and not let it drop.

TUCHMAN: Carole Hinders restaurant, Mrs. Lady's is empty. It's been sold to a new owner. Her memories of it fond at least until the last few months it was open when she was tormented by a federal agency that never charged her with a crime.


COOPER: Gary Tuchman joins us now. Did anybody ever apologize to her? I mean why is this even allowed in the first place?

TUCHMAN: No one apologized to her. Here's how authorities get around, what we know to be a very important part of this country, innocent until proven guilty. If your money gets taken away via forfeiture, you're not the one who gets sued. It's your money that gets sued and your money does not have the presumption of innocence. And that's why this case is not the United States versus Carol Hinders, it's the United States versus $33,820.56. Your money has no rights. That's how it goes, Anderson.

COOPER: That's fascinating case. Gary, a great, great reporting. Thank you. Now a question, how many guns do you think the TSA confiscated last year? We're going to tell you the record number next.


COOPER: Let's check in with Amara Walker. She's got a "360 Bulletin." Amara.

AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Anderson. Thousands gathered in Saudi Arabia to mourn the death of King Abdullah who died yesterday at the age of 90. His body was carried from a Riyadh mosque for us - to a cemetery for burial today. The TSA seized a record 2,212 guns from carry on luggage in 2014, that's an average of six guns per day.

Eighty-three percent were loaded. Dallas, where the airport have the highest number at 120. And a dramatic rescue at sea caught on tape. The British coastguard rescued crew members from a fishing boat as it was sinking off the couch on Scotland, Anderson.

COOPER: Wow, an amazing video that. Amber, thanks very much. Thanks for watching.