Civil forfeiture: eye-opening Washington Post piece

[Hoober]

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.

"Homeland security" has also resulted in the slow evaporation of our rights.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

"Homeland security" has also resulted in the slow evaporation of our rights.

Yes, partly worrying times. The various "freedoms" we once had (around the world), are being eroded by various modern things, such as the internet (being monitored in various senses), cell/mobile phones being location monitored and various other weaknesses in our freedoms.
I've even heard rumours, that some of our "private" conversations in the street (in the UK), can be listened in to via the sensitive microphones of nearby (government/council run) CCTV systems.

Maybe films/books like George Orwells 1984, is eventually coming true, at least in part.

Ok well I'm exaggerating, and beginning to go off-topic. Back soon, my door bell has just gone off. For some reason a big black Van, over head gun-ship helicopter, and 4 men, dressed in all black suits, with earpieces and black sunglasses are calling.

Be right back . . .

 

[Triumph]

I really don't understand it. How is this unclear?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I'd say it's pretty unreasonable to seize someone's property if they haven't been convicted of any crime.

 

[brianmanahan]

a YASECT without the SE

 

[Triumph]

So how bout this? If you need to travel with a large amount of cash (which many of us do, I just took $4,000 cash with me today to look at a motorcycle I was going to buy), put it in a strong lock box with a combination password (not a key). If anyone wants to see what's in it, they need a warrant, and they're not getting into it if you don't give them the code.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida.

“It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”

Americans let this happen so they deserve every bit of it and more.

 

[dmcowen674]

So how bout this? If you need to travel with a large amount of cash (which many of us do, I just took $4,000 cash with me today to look at a motorcycle I was going to buy), put it in a strong lock box with a combination password (not a key). If anyone wants to see what's in it, they need a warrant, and they're not getting into it if you don't give them the code.

You were lucky, if you got stopped that won't help you, they will simply confiscate the lock box.

 

[highland145]

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/

Add operation choke point. I'm a largely cash business. If I run out of banks, eff you TD, I'll be forced to have it on hand.

 

[MrPickins]

a YASECT without the SE

This isn't just an issue with the cops, though... This a problem with the entire system.

 

[inachu]

I can't wait for this to happen to a %1'er

Either the cops will take their car and money or the %1'er will take their cop cars away.

Hmmmm....

 

[leeland]

Marked for later

 

[BoberFett]

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.

How is it not the cops fault that he confiscated cash from you for no reason?

 

[Markbnj]

How is it not the cops fault that he confiscated cash from you for no reason?

There's no simple answer to this question. It requires judgement. And the line is a really tough one to cross for anybody. As a copy you do what you are ordered to do as long as you want to keep the job, just like the rest of us. So what we're really asking is when is a cop morally required to walk away from the job rather than continue to do what is ordered?

It's not that many cops are going to walk regardless. People actually enjoy belonging to powerful, exclusive groups and seek that sort of situation in life, so most will not voluntarily dissociate from one. But if you can answer the question it at least gives you a framework for deciding how to judge the police.

People often make similar analyses with regard to the German people and members of the armed forces in WWII, and in that case people who refused risked actually being killed by the state for their refusal, so that makes it an even more interesting problem. Ultimately we're all geared to prefer the preservation of ourselves and our offspring, right?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

How is it not the cops fault that he confiscated cash from you for no reason?

I don't know how the law is specifically written. But if it is written, such that there is no requirement, to have a reason, other than the $cash was found and there was a valid reason to inspect/search the vehicle, then that would be lawful (I presume), even if it is not nice of the police to do that (without significant suspicion that a crime has taken place, to do with the money).

I meant that the safeguards should be built into the design of the law in the first place, rather than relying on the cops ability to only confiscate the $cash in reasonable circumstances.

But on reflection, I at least partially agree with you, the police should take a degree of responsibility in protecting people from the misuse of this law.

Part of the problem (as I see it), is that if the particular policemen, take a dislike to you, and find a pile of $cash. Perhaps to buy a nice boat or something, and he wants $cash, to do the transaction, and you are on your way to meet up with the seller. The policeman can lawfully confiscate the $cash, and you will be without it, for a long time (1 or 2 years), and probably a lot out of pocket in fees and hassle, getting a lawyer to win it back for you.

Because you are potentially 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, whatsoever, it seems rather unfair/unjust/horrible.

 

[lupi]

Even though the law sounds like it was suposed to have regulations restriced it from being a direct incentive to the confiscating authorty, that such can still occur is without doubt going to cause abuse of the system.

A fix would be real easy, designate one of the federal charity management funds as the source for 100% of the assets attained under the program.

 

[momeNt]

A lot of money that has been seized directly defunded terrorist activities. If you remove programs like this, and stop police from protecting our homeland, you are allowing terrorists to traffic money around the states, and finance terrorist attacks. Even if not charged with a crime, that doesn't prove they weren't a terrorist or involved in financing terrorism. The few people that did have money confiscated for no reason, are reasonable collateral damage in order to keep this free nation safe from terrorism and other evils.

 

[Brainonska511]

A lot of money that has been seized directly defunded terrorist activities. If you remove programs like this, and stop police from protecting our homeland, you are allowing terrorists to traffic money around the states, and finance terrorist attacks. Even if not charged with a crime, that doesn't prove they weren't a terrorist or involved in financing terrorism. The few people that did have money confiscated for no reason, are reasonable collateral damage in order to keep this free nation safe from terrorism and other evils.

That attitude will destroy this country to keep it safe.

 

[MixMasterTang]

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.

So to sum it up "Do as you do" otherwise they are wrong and deserve to get their money taken from them.

 

[highland145]

A lot of money that has been seized directly defunded terrorist activities. If you remove programs like this, and stop police from protecting our homeland, you are allowing terrorists to traffic money around the states, and finance terrorist attacks. Even if not charged with a crime, that doesn't prove they weren't a terrorist or involved in financing terrorism. The few people that did have money confiscated for no reason, are reasonable collateral damage in order to keep this free nation safe from terrorism and other evils.

So if they take $15 or$20K from you, you'd be O.K. with that?

Bull shit.

nb4 "I don't carry around a lot of cash."🙄

 

[momeNt]

That attitude will destroy this country to keep it safe.

I think in order to protect you need to account for the worst possible scenario and prioritize stopping that above all else. For a long time this country was never protected from threats, real or perceived, and we lived free. The public now wants to be protected from threats, and we have empowered our justice system, defense system, and police system to prophylactically protect us from real and perceived threats.

A different option is to let freedom prevail, and shrink the size or scope of our police and national defense system, and to bear whatever risk that brings by not stopping and frisking, or monitoring, or however else national security is administered in this country.

One thing we all have to realize though, is that you are talking about real people here that make a living off increased national defense budgets, and who they themselves advise our government on the risk that our nation is under. So their incentive is for the nation to remain highly vigilant against terrorism, because that keeps them paid. It seems pretty difficult to start a campaign advocating shrinking the size of those agencies under the premise of the cost to our freedom isn't worth it. We have for the last 13 years been pounding terrorism into people's skulls and honoring a large standing military at every possible chance we get in order to preserve that industry. Just doesn't seem likely.

 

[momeNt]

So if they take $15 or$20K from you, you'd be O.K. with that?

Bull shit.

nb4 "I don't carry around a lot of cash."🙄

Being American is about being part of a team, something bigger than yourself. It isn't about being free from obligation and living on an island of amber waves of grain. It's about your fellow man, about what you can do for your country, it's about America.

 

[Jeff7]

...
I'd say it's pretty unreasonable to seize someone's property if they haven't been convicted of any crime.

It's quite reasonable though if you're working for the law enforcement agency that will directly benefit from the theft.

 

[Markbnj]

Being American is about being part of a team, something bigger than yourself. It isn't about being free from obligation and living on an island of amber waves of grain. It's about your fellow man, about what you can do for your country, it's about America.

Nice try, but I'm pretty sure you're just going to have to come right out and say you were kidding before they get it.

 

[master_shake_]

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.

problem is in most states those trials are ex-parte which is latin for sit the fuck down and you can't say anything.

 

[squarecut1]

Guys, moment is being sarcastic. That is his style and he does it better than most