Civil forfeiture: eye-opening Washington Post piece

[Markbnj]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2

I don't really have any level-headed comment on this yet. It's nothing new, but seeing it laid out like this gives me distinctively uncivil thoughts.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't really have any level-headed comment on this yet. It's nothing new, but seeing it laid out like this gives me distinctively uncivil thoughts.

I think you need to go to "school" for some (re)education. You apparently forgot what freedom looks like. A year or two of "schooling" should clear it up for you.

 

[Markbnj]

I just shared this on Facebook, and since I have a big law enforcement camp in my family (two state cops and a local) I expect to hear about it.

 

[Mide]

don't carry around cash...I carry around 40-80 cash only. Ta da...nothing to seize.

 

[Brainonska511]

don't carry around cash...I carry around 40-80 cash only. Ta da...nothing to seize.

And if you're driving? Your car is worth something too.
----

And some people simply don't have the same access to banks and credit that you might, hence people that drive with thousands of dollars in cash (or if someone is going to purchase a car somewhere, or any number of other reasons).

 

[Mide]

And if you're driving? Your car is worth something too.
----
And some people simply don't have the same access to banks and credit that you might, hence people that drive with thousands of dollars in cash (or if someone is going to purchase a car somewhere, or any number of other reasons).

True, if the cops wanted to go as far as seizing my car they could, based on this video, but that would probably mean that they do it quite often or I am very unlucky. If they were stopping more random people and seizing their cars, who would they profile when they do this? Someone driving a nicer car so that they can "get more" or someone driving a Honda? Chances are that they would run into more problems if it was the former because wealthier folks will sue.

I would agree that some people don't have access to credit, but no access to a bank? Even if you live in the boonies, if you have cash and an ID, you will not be denied a bank account and a debit card. The only times I have had large sums of cash were, as you mentioned, selling a car or buying a car, but that only happened once every 2-4 years thus the probability of getting caught are low. Are the people in the video just very unlucky? Who knows.

Either way...pretty disturbing stuff...I've made that same drive from Elko to Reno through Nevada before...there's nothing out there.

 

[MrPickins]

Another good article on the practice:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

 

[Brainonska511]

True, if the cops wanted to go as far as seizing my car they could, based on this video, but that would probably mean that they do it quite often or I am very unlucky. If they were stopping more random people and seizing their cars, who would they profile when they do this? Someone driving a nicer car so that they can "get more" or someone driving a Honda? Chances are that they would run into more problems if it was the former because wealthier folks will sue.

I would agree that some people don't have access to credit, but no access to a bank? Even if you live in the boonies, if you have cash and an ID, you will not be denied a bank account and a debit card. The only times I have had large sums of cash were, as you mentioned, selling a car or buying a car, but that only happened once every 2-4 years thus the probability of getting caught are low. Are the people in the video just very unlucky? Who knows.

Either way...pretty disturbing stuff...I've made that same drive from Elko to Reno through Nevada before...there's nothing out there.

There are many reasons you might not currently have or be able to have a bank account.
http://business.time.com/2012/11/20/why-so-many-americans-dont-have-bank-accounts/

 

[KK]

its why i cheer when a cop goes down. one less crook out there.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

its why i cheer when a cop goes down. one less crook out there.

Apart from the fact that it is VERY sad when a cop goes down (there is a NORMAL human being involved!), this seems to be an issue for how the law(s) have been designed in the first place. Which is NOT the cops fault.

i.e. The solution is to have decent/sensible, well thought out/designed laws.

If the laws are "faulty" and/or have poor/little redress, then that is NOT the cops fault.

 

[lxskllr]

Apart from the fact that it is VERY sad when a cop goes down (there is a NORMAL human being involved!), this seems to be an issue for how the law(s) have been designed in the first place. Which is NOT the cops fault.

i.e. The solution is to have decent/sensible, well thought out/designed laws.

If the laws are "faulty" and/or have poor/little redress, then that is NOT the cops fault.

So, "I was just following orders" makes it all better, eh?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

So, "I was just following orders" makes it all better, eh?

I don't know what the law says.

But if it says something like, Section 11 . 9 . 22 (B) "ALL cash found in vehicles, exceeding $10,000 can be assumed to be drug (or similar) illegal money funds, until proven otherwise".

Then the police can take such funds into "custody", until the claimant has successfully proved that they legally posses/own the money, and it has no connection with any crime.

If the laws seem a bit foolish, then maybe the laws need reviewing/revising/rewriting/changing.

It is also possible that the police are NOT using enough discretion/initiative (common sense) with the implementation of such laws, which could mean that they need more training, better advice and maybe the selection procedure is NOT rigorous enough.

 

[Brainonska511]

its why i cheer when a cop goes down. one less crook out there.

That's a pretty irrational response. With almost 800,000 law enforcement officers (between local, state, and federal) in the US, it is highly likely that most are not crooks.

So, "I was just following orders" makes it all better, eh?

Unfortunately, it takes a lot to stand up to the system. Apparently, not everyone has the testicular fortitude you seem to possess.

 

[MarkXIX]

Pretty simple, ALWAYS refuse to consent to a search. Forget everything else you have scheduled that day as soon as you do though. DEMAND a search warrant or to be allowed to leave, but do so professionally and calmly. IMMEDIATELY try to confer with an attorney if possible, the cost of doing so will probably not rise to the level of the other time and money lost fighting back once they've searched and discovered something they think is suspicious.

Bottom line, know your rights. You should never consent to a search, no matter how innocent you may think you are. Do you know that the cash you may be transporting isn't contaminated with drugs that a trained drug dog might detect? You don't, so just assume nothing and DO NOT consent to a search.

 

[Brainonska511]

Pretty simple, ALWAYS refuse to consent to a search. Forget everything else you have scheduled that day as soon as you do though. DEMAND a search warrant or to be allowed to leave, but do so professionally and calmly. IMMEDIATELY try to confer with an attorney if possible, the cost of doing so will probably not rise to the level of the other time and money lost fighting back once they've searched and discovered something they think is suspicious.

Bottom line, know your rights. You should never consent to a search, no matter how innocent you may think you are. Do you know that the cash you may be transporting isn't contaminated with drugs that a trained drug dog might detect? You don't, so just assume nothing and DO NOT consent to a search.

Its sound advice, but as the articles on civil asset forfeiture state, if the police do take your property, whether it is in a traffic stop or some other instance, it's incredibly expensive and time consuming to fight it with no guarantee of success.

Frankly, this is an issue that needs serious attention and reform. Instead, we're constantly sidetracked by less relevant issues.

 

[lxskllr]

Unfortunately, it takes a lot to stand up to the system. Apparently, not everyone has the testicular fortitude you seem to possess.

I wouldn't work for a criminal organization in the first place. Bill Gates doesn't have enough money to pay me to be a cop, and there's no 'changing things from the inside'. One person can do fuck all, and if by some miracle I actually got to the rank of making decisions, I'd be out on the street faster than Obama can change his mind. The reason is police work is a second revenue stream aside from taxes and 'fees'. As soon as I dried up the revenue stream, the politicos would have my head on a platter.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If the laws are "faulty" and/or have poor/little redress, then that is NOT the cops fault.

The Police can refuse to enforce bad laws.....

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The Police can refuse to enforce bad laws.....

But they can also decide to implement them. So really the best/better solution would be to have decently written laws in the first place, and/or one of the other numerous solutions/improvements.

But yes, some of the damage due to this (probably) badly constructed law, can be reduced by the police using their discretion.

 

[waggy]

yeah. i am against how they go about it. far to many stories of them taking legal money.

But it's not just cash. they seize houses over BS reasons also.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I don't know what the law says.

But if it says something like, Section 11 . 9 . 22 (B) "ALL cash found in vehicles, exceeding $10,000 can be assumed to be drug (or similar) illegal money funds, until proven otherwise".

Then the police can take such funds into "custody", until the claimant has successfully proved that they legally posses/own the money, and it has no connection with any crime.

If the laws seem a bit foolish, then maybe the laws need reviewing/revising/rewriting/changing.

It is also possible that the police are NOT using enough discretion/initiative (common sense) with the implementation of such laws, which could mean that they need more training, better advice and maybe the selection procedure is NOT rigorous enough.

This is interesting. When I sold cars during a brief period in my past life, I had three occasions in on Summer in which someone buying a new car brought in US$10K or more as a down payment. Naturally this was met with the federal requirements of the new car dealership reporting it, but it wasn't illegal and at no time did the dealership, entity lending the balance to the buyer, or the Federal government determine as a default the monies being brought onto the dealership property as being from illegal activity.

I find it an easy ass-hole option for any officer to decide discretion to not be anything but their desire to pull a power trip. Personally, if I were out that kind of money I would go after the police officials and those in municipal government and uncover all the dirty they may have. But that is just me.

 

[Mide]

There are many reasons you might not currently have or be able to have a bank account.
http://business.time.com/2012/11/20/why-so-many-americans-dont-have-bank-accounts/

Eh, I'll point out that some of the reasons in the article are personal issues or ignorance issues to not having a bank account.

Services aren’t always available. - Sure if you live in the boonies or if there are no branches around where you live then this is a reason...but still I'm sure there has to be an ATM machine someplace.

People don’t have enough time or money. - Some checking accounts have larger $500+ minimums so I can understand how a person working from paycheck to paycheck may not be able to upkeep this amount...but they can at least have a savings account. Most credit unions have low minimums as well. No time because of odd hours = solved with ATM machines.

Some people don’t trust banks. - Personal choice here. Sure, after a customer gets raped a few times for overdraft fees it may leave a bad taste in their mouth, but lacking the sensibility to read the details and rules regarding bank accounts is not an excuse...

Potential customers lack financial literacy. - Ignorance isn't really a good excuse. Read the pamphlet.

When I was dirt poor at 16 with my first "mall job", I had a bank account, $20 minimum, and a debit card. Most people should be able to copy this. If someone doesn't have a bank account then it's their own choice vs that of not being able to get one.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's a pretty irrational response. With almost 800,000 law enforcement officers (between local, state, and federal) in the US, it is highly likely that most are not crooks.

Unfortunately, it takes a lot to stand up to the system. Apparently, not everyone has the testicular fortitude you seem to possess.

Would you have the same response if we were talking about soldiers of a foreign, authoritarian regime dying? Never mind that they may be perfectly fine fellows, nice to their family and friends, obedient of all laws. The difference, of course, is that there is no draft forcing people into the DEA or similar at risk of court martial and execution.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This is interesting. When I sold cars during a brief period in my past life, I had three occasions in on Summer in which someone buying a new car brought in US$10K or more as a down payment. Naturally this was met with the federal requirements of the new car dealership reporting it, but it wasn't illegal and at no time did the dealership, entity lending the balance to the buyer, or the Federal government determine as a default the monies being brought onto the dealership property as being from illegal activity.

I find it an easy ass-hole option for any officer to decide discretion to not be anything but their desire to pull a power trip. Personally, if I were out that kind of money I would go after the police officials and those in municipal government and uncover all the dirty they may have. But that is just me.

I guess there are different ways, countries can decide to implement their laws.

In the UK, you would be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. So unless the Police can find significant evidence, that the money is from criminal activities, such as a bank robbery or drugs related etc. The police would have to return all the money, to the suspects.

It is not necessarily too unreasonable that the US handles this in a different way (otherwise the country would be called the United states of England, or something). But it is very sad that a potentially 100% fully innocent person(s), very hard working $10,000++, has been held by the police for 1 or 2 years, and costs the innocent suspect much time/worry and money paying for lawyers, just to get their hard working money back in the first place.

I much prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" scheme, which the UK has.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In general we do have an "innocent until proven guilty" set-up. Unfortunately, the war on drugs messed all of that up.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

In general we do have an "innocent until proven guilty" set-up. Unfortunately, the war on drugs messed all of that up.

That's a good answer

Maybe what it needs is for the person to still be "innocent until proven guilty", UNLESS they have been previously convicted of drug activities (especially selling), or maybe any serious criminal convictions.
And/or finding signs of drug activities in the vehicle as well, as a "safety net", such as finding some drugs in the vehicle.

Or alternatively have the need for a local judge to decide if they (the suspects) should initially keep the money now (and that's the end of the matter), or if it needs to be proved that it was NOT criminally obtained. A bit like how a search warrant is obtained.