18 ms·

How Police Officers Seize Cash from Innocent Americans

tracker1 11y ago
I'm curious if any of the police officers behind the seizures could be sued as personally liable when no charges are brought.
- trjordan 11y ago
  Personally liable doesn't help. All that does is encourage a lazy police force, where individuals aren't apt to do anything for fear of losing everything. Institutional responsibility does work. If the police department faces real consequences, they'll figure out a way to clamp down on it. Maybe it's firing officers that are out of line. Maybe it's simply better training and guidelines. No matter what, if the organization as a whole suffers from unreasonable seizures, they'll figure out a way to avoid those consequences in a robust way.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    If those officers are relatively certain the money is connected to drug activity, give them 30-90 days to build a case, or return the seized assets.. The wholesale forfeiture used is absolutely unconstitutional.
- Amorymeltzer 11y ago
  Could, should, and would probably have three very different answers.
- tokenadult 11y ago
  I'm curious if any of the police officers behind the seizures could be sued as personally liable when no charges are brought. There has been a possibility of lawsuits against law enforcement officials for denial of civil rights under color of law for a long time. And, indeed, some of the worst practices of the past have been corrected by such lawsuits. The civil forfeiture cases that have become so commonplace in recent years are a new (and, in my opinion, aberrational) practice that does need to be rolled back a lot, and lawsuits will be one part of the toolkit for doing that. http://ij.org/action-post/seize-first-ask-questions-later-philadelphia-police-take-over-6-million-a-year-in-civil-asset-forfeiture/ http://ij.org/action-post/seize-first-ask-questions-later-ph... https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-t...
balls187 11y ago
John Oliver had a great piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks In the US, where the constitution expressly prohibits it: that your property is seized w/o due process is complete and utter garbage. By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.
- NhanH 11y ago
  > By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do you mind elaborate how firearm would help with combating civil forfeiture?
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.
    - cdash 11y ago
      Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
    - fuzzywalrus 11y ago
      ... which leads more militarized policing.
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.
CptJamesCook 11y ago
This happened to a coworker of mine, when he was flying from the midwest back to San Francisco. He had $15,000 cash on him and it was noticed at security. As he was boarding the plane, government officials grabbed him and took the money. However, it did happen to be money he had made selling drugs several years prior. They had identified him as a convicted felon with a drug related offense and connected the money to it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dibujante 11y ago
  Still problematic. If you removed all due process, a hypothetical police officer could grab someone they're reasonably certain is a criminal and throw them in prison. They could also grab someone they are reasonably certain cut them off on the freeway and throw them in prison. Just because suspending due process makes it easier to apprehend criminals isn't the point. Due process wasn't included in the Constitution because of naiveté.
  - criddell 11y ago
    A person is presumed innocent. The money is guilty until proven innocent.
    - dibujante 11y ago
      If I stole your TV, would I be burglarizing you? Or kidnapping your TV? Last I recall, kidnapping an appliance is not a crime. Where do you live?
      - tedks 11y ago
        I don't think the comment parent was arguing that such a distinction is reasonable, but it is the basis of civil forfeiture in the United States. Money has no constitutional rights, so it can be presumed innocent and seized until its owner can argue on behalf of its innocence.
baakss 11y ago
Someone checked a bag with $11,000 cash in it that he saved up by waiting tables over 5 years? So many questions...
- 55555 11y ago
  Is that so unreasonable?
  - baakss 11y ago
    I had to look it up because it's so bizarre. The explanation is even more bizarre. >Charles was carrying his cash because his bank has few physical branches and he and his mother were in the process of moving and he didn’t want to lose his life savings in the move while he was in Cincinnati. So open up a Chase, or Bank of America, or <insert bank here> account instead of risking someone just stealing your cash in a checked bag that you won't be watching for a few hours, much less airport security?. I've lost bags at the airlines before and had them sent to the wrong cities and such.
    - skj 11y ago
      While it may have been foolish, theft is not excused.
      - baakss 11y ago
        I agree.
      - gozur88 11y ago
        This. I can accept that carrying lots of cash is foolish because you might be robbed by a criminal. I can not accept the idea that carrying cash is foolish because you might be robbed by the government.
- adekok 11y ago
  An argument from ignorance is not good. "I don't understand how he saved that money, so it's probably via some nefarious means". No, a thousand times no. The government has billions of dollars to spend on prosecuting me. I have much less to spend defending myself. The standards should be set such that it is very hard for the government to convict me, by requiring things like "evidence", and "probably cause". The standards should be that it is very easy to defend myself "prove your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt, or I walk". The alternative is totalitarian dictatorships. The guy in charge thinks you're bad? Yup. You're bad. No trial, no defence, no conviction. Just secret police knocking down your door at 2am, and your neighbors waking up the next day with you gone. Everyone is too afraid to defend themselves, so the dictatorship continues. History shows that's the result of opinions like yours. It's why you're getting downvoted.
SN76477 11y ago
It is an embarrassment that our police cannot act like good citizens.
l33tbro 11y ago
As a non-American, it's pretty scary for the rest of us to see how your society can tolerate these Eritrean standover tactics, while still retaining this "freedom loving" doublespeak in the national cinema you project into the world.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  It's scary for us too! At least, those of us who have noticed the cracks in the facade. This is any nation, with an unrestrained military-enforcement-industrial-complex. For instance, I don't think we're any worse off than Pakistan. Make sure to prevent the armaments manufacturers from purchasing your country's political system!
- adventured 11y ago
  That can be maintained because it's still extraordinarily isolated and small in occasion. America remains among the freest nations on earth in nearly every measure - even if it's not the best at every measure. Your premise though is very flawed in my opinion, I don't know very many people that are unaware of the erosion of liberty that has occurred - both sides of the voting aisle are extremely aware of it, it's constantly discussed at a national level (eg the Washington Post has run countless articles on it), and every side of the US politically have their opinions on its nature and what should be done about it. You're acting like this is affecting every American and is very common. It's not. Eritrea? That's laughable, you're intentionally dramatizing to try to insult the US. It is in fact a very, very small problem, that is very serious and needs to be put down before it gets any larger. Steps have already begun to put an end to it. Why pretend it's not an understood problem that almost everyone agrees needs to be dealt with? The only reason to pretend that, is to levy a cheap shot at the US.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    What is your yardstick? Third world banana republics? People in the United States are less free than most advanced European countries. In those countries, governments tend to respect people AND limit the power of corporations so people can be free from coercive economic activity.
ilyaeck 11y ago
How is this not a major sensation/scandal? "Free country" my foot!
- cglace 11y ago
  Because it only happens to a very small percentage of the population.
forgottenacc56 11y ago
Police seizures is the foundation of a corrupt society.
joesmo 11y ago
This is one of the reasons I cannot respect the police or the judicial system in this country and I seriously question those who do.
joshpadnick 11y ago
I often wonder if there is a tech solution to these types of issues. For example, are records of every instance of a civil forfeiture publicly available? Would it be helpful (and ethical) to publish this list to shine a bright spotlight on the practice? Would that make a difference? It also raises the age-old question of "who polices the police?" The (federal) DOJ can only do so much, it seems. But maybe ordinary citizens can demand reform if injustice stares them in the face? From what I've read in the press (especially NyTimes), the USA justice system seems to fundamentally disadvantage poor people [1]. The saddest part about the civil forfeiture business is that it probably affects the poorest people, who then have the least resources to challenge it. On a separate note, I know the press is more likely to publish instances of injustice vs run-of-the-mill "just" justice. I honestly have no concept of if we live in a society with a tiny bit of corruption, or a lot more than I ever realized. [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.htm...
- vanattab 11y ago
  Bitcoin?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  The (federal) DOJ can only do so much, it seems. DoJ wishes they didn't do the little they already do. They are not opposed to cops. They are cops. We need something like NTSB, which is specifically set up not to be friends with FAA. Your comment about the poor is spot-on. If you're curious and you have some free time, hang around a courthouse or other judicial building for a day on which traffic and other minor violations are being adjudicated. You will be disgusted by the number of people sent to jail because they're not able to pay the fine for not being able to pay the fine for not being able to pay to fix their cars. Then note how many people are begging the clerk for more lenient payment plans on the bill they have for their room and board when they were sent to jail, because if they can't keep up, guess what? More jail! Ferguson wasn't really about Michael Brown.
throwaway15236 11y ago
It happened to me. I was flying out of San Francisco once on an international flight. And at SFO some of the international terminals go through these long corridors to connect to that moveable tunnel that connects to a plane. I was fixing some bug on my laptop and decided to wait till the last minute to board (though I was sitting right infront of the check-in desk). When I went past the check-in desk and into the corridor, two police officers approached me and asked me if they could ask a few questions. It felt suspicious right away why they were stopping me as there were hardly any people around - there was no one behind me, and everyone had already gone through the corridor. They took me aside into a small room and asked me where I was travelling to and for what purpose. But then they repeated a number of times that it's illegal to carry more than $10,000 in cash and if I was carrying over that amount and that if I was it would have to be confiscated. I told them I wasn't and I think I only had less than $500 in my wallet. They went through my wallet, went through my bag pack, even flipped through my Clojure book and then they let me go. But I kept having that feeling that something didn't feel right. Later I wished I had asked for the officers names or if that would have gotten me into trouble with them.
- ourmandave 11y ago
  It's not illegal to carry cash, no matter how much.
  - rev_bird 11y ago
    I believe there are import/export restrictions on international flights.
    - ourmandave 11y ago
      I missed the intl' flight part. =( I was think of interstate travel.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      Is it illegal, or is it just that you have to declare it?
    - 11y ago
iamleppert 11y ago
Between the police shooting innocent people, tasering and bearing up our kids, does anyone even feel safe around them anymore? Whenever I see police, I have the same fight or flight response as if I'd see someone in a dark alley. The police have become dangerous, and none of my friends trust them. They would be the last people I'd call if there was something happening. Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob you. Who does that sound like?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Don't take this as a direct response to your comment, but it sparked a thought: perhaps we can expect a new dismissive PCism regarding attitudes toward police rather than e.g. gender. Maybe "poliphobe" or "citizen-sympathizer"? I'm sure the police unions and prison corporations can come up with something better, but this seems like a logical next step for them.
  - nickff 11y ago
    You are describing how political correctness is becoming (or has become) Orwellian NewSpeak; the language has been changed to control public debates and thought in general.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob you. Yap pretty much. I came from a country where cops would torture people to get confessions out of them. Basically chances were, if they caught you, and they were bored / were bribed by someone, or just had a bad day, they could make you "confess" to crimes easily. One time my friend and I caught a pickpocketer. Pickpocketer's associate swiped my friend's wallet. There was a group of them, all scattered except one. We caught him and eventaully ended up with him at a police station. It was a quiet evening there. One cop even had his 1st or 2nd grader son there playing around in the hallway. So being bored, the cops decided to get this pickpocketer to tell them where his buddies are hanging out. They needed the wallet to officially to charge him so they could arrest him. So to get him to talk, they asked us to leave the room. Then proceeded to torture him. Holy crap! I can still hear his pleas for help. What started with us being happy we caught him and him getting some justice, turned into us feeling pretty sorry for him... at some point we signed some papers and just left. Long story short, there is a good reason there to be afraid of cops. They are just like an organized criminal gang are are sanctioned to operate by the law. You never know what they'll do, they have guns, friends with guns, and could beat or torture you to death on a whim. Now it is night and day to what is in this country, and I felt pretty safe in general around cops here. But in later years, the stories I hear, camera recordings of cops shooting people, the whole forfeture thing, I see things slowly start to nudge into a bad direction. I start feeling a little bit more like I felt there, in the old country. Also, I can't decide if cops have started to do this more, or that they've always done but there weren't as many cameras around to record it, and only the poor people got to experience that side of the "law".
graycat 11y ago
Yes, for government to confiscate private property without due process is a bummer, an outrageous violation of our Constitutional rights. No doubt about that. In particular, that the police believe that someone is acting suspiciously is nothing like justification for such confiscation. Yes, there have long been news articles on this civil forfeiture scam. No doubt it happens. But have to suspect that it doesn't happen very often to innocent people. Why so suspect? Because there would be more screaming, political debates, SCOTUS cases, etc. In a sense, that there can be such a scam is not too surprising: That is, as we know well, generally, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". So, we can expect attacks on our Constitutional rights, and, to get our rights back or just maintain them, we have to fight, continually. That is, there are plenty of people who will take our rights unless we do fight back. So, right along, there needs to be fighting back. Where is the ACLU in all of this? What about other groups interested in keeping government under control? We can fight back by bringing law suits and by voting. But, in particular, and in practical terms, in a local community, likely it can be enough to be known and respected in the community, active in politics, well known to the local politicians, and to have a little chat with them. A respected local citizen will likely not get pushed around by the police. It's a little like high school -- it helps to fit in at least a little. Broadly an immediate, expedient, practical solution is: In public, don't carry a lot of cash. If have a lot of cash in your house, then, in case your house gets searched, have that cash well hidden. If you have a business that gets paid in cash, say, some tens of thousands a month, maybe make a daily deposit to your business account. Then, get well known at your bank as a successful, local business person who does get revenue in cash -- hopefully then your bank won't file papers saying that you are suspicious. E.g., generally in business, a banker wants good business customers, and business person wants good respect from their banker. Commonly in a small community, the police know a lot of the people. That can help, say, if at 3 AM drive to the post office to deposit a letter -- the local police will just remember who you are and relax. It might help to make a donation to some local police charity drive and, there, shake hands with the local chief of police. Maybe can get a window sticker for your car indicating that you are such a supporter. Likely if there are enough legal cases where citizens bring suit against civil forfeiture, the practice will reach the SCOTUS and get struck down. Of course, legal cases are very expensive, but there are a lot of law school graduates without much to do; with enough forfeiture cases, some of those lawyers would take such cases and change the situation. For long distance travel, there is an old saying, "A stranger in a strange land". So, it has long been recognized that being such a stranger is not the usual but has some dangers. E.g., don't carry much cash or anything very valuable. E.g., if want to carry $15,000 to buy a used car, just go to a bank and get a certified check for that amount and hide it somewhere, maybe in a book, fold it up and put it between two credit cards in your wallet, or just mail it to yourself at your destination. Some of the police might say that anyone who didn't use such a technique is suspicious.
samstave 11y ago
I fucking love the fact that HNers while perhaps not knowing, overmen outrightly deny it, are a part of /r/conspiracy and dont even realize it. the whole system needs disruption, that's what we do.
jostmey 11y ago
The way civil forfeiture is being used in these examples is a violation of a citizen's constitutional right and the perpetrators, no matter their appearance, are criminals and must be dealt with as such. I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who might say otherwise. They will tell you that "this" is how the constitution is interpreted. But the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, was written so that you could understand it, irregardless of what politicians and lawyers say.
colinshark 11y ago
"You know, stuff we needed but didn’t necessarily have a budget for. So, when this money comes in, it’s considered extra" Except municipalities explicitly write expected seizures into their annual budgets. They literally must seize property to make their planned budget.
steveeq1 11y ago
From a statistical perspective, you are far more likely to shot or beaten up by a black man than you are through a crooked cop. Would you go around telling people you have the same fears towards black people and say this is a fair statement? I think what's going on is availability bias. This is where dramatic or sensationalized dangers get overplayed in one's mind instead of paying attention to the actual probabilities. It's basically like shark bites, airplane crashes, or terrorist attacks. The media tends to sensationalize these risks because there is money in it and people tend to over-fear them despite their actual statistical probability. Don't get me wrong, there should be something done about crooked cops. But it's also important to distinguish real risk with the types of risks that sell newspapers.
- wheaties 11y ago
  No, it's outrageous that this can happen. It doesn't matter that the probability is nil one of "us" woukd see this.
- jarrettch 11y ago
  Over a thousand people were killed by police in the US in 2015 according to http://killedbypolice.net/ http://killedbypolice.net/ which is more than fatalities from shark bites, airplane crashes and terrorist attacks in America combined in this recent calendar year, so comparing those with police shootings(some justified, many not) is dubious at best. Maybe expecting to be murdered is a dramatic perspective to have, sure. Most people aren't murdered. But expecting the people who are hired and paid with tax dollars to "Protect and Serve" but instead kill, beat, or straight up steal from you(among other things) doesn't seem like something we should just accept because statistically it happens less than other things.
  - steveeq1 11y ago
    Yes, and how many of those shootings were justified? How many of those were in self defense? I'd wager the bulk. I'm not saying unjustified shootings are absolutely ZERO. But it's relatively small in comparison to things like, say, black shootings. And I'm not saying "you should be afraid of black people" (because you shouldn't. . .), but what I AM saying is that iamleppert should put his fear of cops into perspective.
wsha 11y ago
There are legitimate concerns about police overreach, etc., but I can't get past the part where we start off talking about someone checking $11,000 in cash. Was this guy just not familiar with air travel? Or is it less likely that money will be seized from a checked bag than from a carry-on? It's just absurd to me to put that much value into a checked bag, especially in the form of cash.
known 11y ago
Corrupt police always try to bully/rob you; Don't confront him; Call a senior police official or call a lawyer;

I'm curious if any of the police officers behind the seizures could be sued as personally liable when no charges are brought.

trjordan 11y ago
Personally liable doesn't help. All that does is encourage a lazy police force, where individuals aren't apt to do anything for fear of losing everything. Institutional responsibility does work. If the police department faces real consequences, they'll figure out a way to clamp down on it. Maybe it's firing officers that are out of line. Maybe it's simply better training and guidelines. No matter what, if the organization as a whole suffers from unreasonable seizures, they'll figure out a way to avoid those consequences in a robust way.
- tracker1 11y ago
  If those officers are relatively certain the money is connected to drug activity, give them 30-90 days to build a case, or return the seized assets.. The wholesale forfeiture used is absolutely unconstitutional.
Amorymeltzer 11y ago
Could, should, and would probably have three very different answers.
tokenadult 11y ago
I'm curious if any of the police officers behind the seizures could be sued as personally liable when no charges are brought. There has been a possibility of lawsuits against law enforcement officials for denial of civil rights under color of law for a long time. And, indeed, some of the worst practices of the past have been corrected by such lawsuits. The civil forfeiture cases that have become so commonplace in recent years are a new (and, in my opinion, aberrational) practice that does need to be rolled back a lot, and lawsuits will be one part of the toolkit for doing that. http://ij.org/action-post/seize-first-ask-questions-later-philadelphia-police-take-over-6-million-a-year-in-civil-asset-forfeiture/ http://ij.org/action-post/seize-first-ask-questions-later-ph... https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-t...

balls187 11y ago

John Oliver had a great piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks In the US, where the constitution expressly prohibits it: that your property is seized w/o due process is complete and utter garbage. By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.

NhanH 11y ago
> By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry. Do you mind elaborate how firearm would help with combating civil forfeiture?
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  More dead police officers, and a lesser incentive for the police to rob the commoners, most likely. EDIT: To the multitude of downvoters and angry replies: I didn't say I agreed! I'm just saying where these arguments usually logically end up.
  - cdash 11y ago
    Of course, more guns does not bring that about but the willingness to kill and rebel against the government by a major part of the population.
  - fuzzywalrus 11y ago
    ... which leads more militarized policing.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    Which doesn't work until we get to the point of all-out civil rebellion. The US has a heavily armed citizenry now and this is obviously happening. And drawing a weapon on a police officer will end badly no matter what the cop was doing. And that's not for entirely unreasonable reasons.

CptJamesCook 11y ago

This happened to a coworker of mine, when he was flying from the midwest back to San Francisco. He had $15,000 cash on him and it was noticed at security. As he was boarding the plane, government officials grabbed him and took the money. However, it did happen to be money he had made selling drugs several years prior. They had identified him as a convicted felon with a drug related offense and connected the money to it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dibujante 11y ago
Still problematic. If you removed all due process, a hypothetical police officer could grab someone they're reasonably certain is a criminal and throw them in prison. They could also grab someone they are reasonably certain cut them off on the freeway and throw them in prison. Just because suspending due process makes it easier to apprehend criminals isn't the point. Due process wasn't included in the Constitution because of naiveté.
- criddell 11y ago
  A person is presumed innocent. The money is guilty until proven innocent.
  - dibujante 11y ago
    If I stole your TV, would I be burglarizing you? Or kidnapping your TV? Last I recall, kidnapping an appliance is not a crime. Where do you live?
    - tedks 11y ago
      I don't think the comment parent was arguing that such a distinction is reasonable, but it is the basis of civil forfeiture in the United States. Money has no constitutional rights, so it can be presumed innocent and seized until its owner can argue on behalf of its innocence.

baakss 11y ago

Someone checked a bag with $11,000 cash in it that he saved up by waiting tables over 5 years? So many questions...

55555 11y ago
Is that so unreasonable?
- baakss 11y ago
  I had to look it up because it's so bizarre. The explanation is even more bizarre. >Charles was carrying his cash because his bank has few physical branches and he and his mother were in the process of moving and he didn’t want to lose his life savings in the move while he was in Cincinnati. So open up a Chase, or Bank of America, or <insert bank here> account instead of risking someone just stealing your cash in a checked bag that you won't be watching for a few hours, much less airport security?. I've lost bags at the airlines before and had them sent to the wrong cities and such.
  - skj 11y ago
    While it may have been foolish, theft is not excused.
    - baakss 11y ago
      I agree.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      This. I can accept that carrying lots of cash is foolish because you might be robbed by a criminal. I can not accept the idea that carrying cash is foolish because you might be robbed by the government.
adekok 11y ago
An argument from ignorance is not good. "I don't understand how he saved that money, so it's probably via some nefarious means". No, a thousand times no. The government has billions of dollars to spend on prosecuting me. I have much less to spend defending myself. The standards should be set such that it is very hard for the government to convict me, by requiring things like "evidence", and "probably cause". The standards should be that it is very easy to defend myself "prove your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt, or I walk". The alternative is totalitarian dictatorships. The guy in charge thinks you're bad? Yup. You're bad. No trial, no defence, no conviction. Just secret police knocking down your door at 2am, and your neighbors waking up the next day with you gone. Everyone is too afraid to defend themselves, so the dictatorship continues. History shows that's the result of opinions like yours. It's why you're getting downvoted.

SN76477 11y ago

It is an embarrassment that our police cannot act like good citizens.

l33tbro 11y ago

As a non-American, it's pretty scary for the rest of us to see how your society can tolerate these Eritrean standover tactics, while still retaining this "freedom loving" doublespeak in the national cinema you project into the world.

jessaustin 11y ago
It's scary for us too! At least, those of us who have noticed the cracks in the facade. This is any nation, with an unrestrained military-enforcement-industrial-complex. For instance, I don't think we're any worse off than Pakistan. Make sure to prevent the armaments manufacturers from purchasing your country's political system!
adventured 11y ago
That can be maintained because it's still extraordinarily isolated and small in occasion. America remains among the freest nations on earth in nearly every measure - even if it's not the best at every measure. Your premise though is very flawed in my opinion, I don't know very many people that are unaware of the erosion of liberty that has occurred - both sides of the voting aisle are extremely aware of it, it's constantly discussed at a national level (eg the Washington Post has run countless articles on it), and every side of the US politically have their opinions on its nature and what should be done about it. You're acting like this is affecting every American and is very common. It's not. Eritrea? That's laughable, you're intentionally dramatizing to try to insult the US. It is in fact a very, very small problem, that is very serious and needs to be put down before it gets any larger. Steps have already begun to put an end to it. Why pretend it's not an understood problem that almost everyone agrees needs to be dealt with? The only reason to pretend that, is to levy a cheap shot at the US.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  What is your yardstick? Third world banana republics? People in the United States are less free than most advanced European countries. In those countries, governments tend to respect people AND limit the power of corporations so people can be free from coercive economic activity.

ilyaeck 11y ago

How is this not a major sensation/scandal? "Free country" my foot!

cglace 11y ago
Because it only happens to a very small percentage of the population.

forgottenacc56 11y ago

Police seizures is the foundation of a corrupt society.

joesmo 11y ago

This is one of the reasons I cannot respect the police or the judicial system in this country and I seriously question those who do.

joshpadnick 11y ago

I often wonder if there is a tech solution to these types of issues. For example, are records of every instance of a civil forfeiture publicly available? Would it be helpful (and ethical) to publish this list to shine a bright spotlight on the practice? Would that make a difference? It also raises the age-old question of "who polices the police?" The (federal) DOJ can only do so much, it seems. But maybe ordinary citizens can demand reform if injustice stares them in the face? From what I've read in the press (especially NyTimes), the USA justice system seems to fundamentally disadvantage poor people [1]. The saddest part about the civil forfeiture business is that it probably affects the poorest people, who then have the least resources to challenge it. On a separate note, I know the press is more likely to publish instances of injustice vs run-of-the-mill "just" justice. I honestly have no concept of if we live in a society with a tiny bit of corruption, or a lot more than I ever realized. [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.htm...

vanattab 11y ago
Bitcoin?
jessaustin 11y ago
The (federal) DOJ can only do so much, it seems. DoJ wishes they didn't do the little they already do. They are not opposed to cops. They are cops. We need something like NTSB, which is specifically set up not to be friends with FAA. Your comment about the poor is spot-on. If you're curious and you have some free time, hang around a courthouse or other judicial building for a day on which traffic and other minor violations are being adjudicated. You will be disgusted by the number of people sent to jail because they're not able to pay the fine for not being able to pay the fine for not being able to pay to fix their cars. Then note how many people are begging the clerk for more lenient payment plans on the bill they have for their room and board when they were sent to jail, because if they can't keep up, guess what? More jail! Ferguson wasn't really about Michael Brown.

throwaway15236 11y ago

It happened to me. I was flying out of San Francisco once on an international flight. And at SFO some of the international terminals go through these long corridors to connect to that moveable tunnel that connects to a plane. I was fixing some bug on my laptop and decided to wait till the last minute to board (though I was sitting right infront of the check-in desk). When I went past the check-in desk and into the corridor, two police officers approached me and asked me if they could ask a few questions. It felt suspicious right away why they were stopping me as there were hardly any people around - there was no one behind me, and everyone had already gone through the corridor. They took me aside into a small room and asked me where I was travelling to and for what purpose. But then they repeated a number of times that it's illegal to carry more than $10,000 in cash and if I was carrying over that amount and that if I was it would have to be confiscated. I told them I wasn't and I think I only had less than $500 in my wallet. They went through my wallet, went through my bag pack, even flipped through my Clojure book and then they let me go. But I kept having that feeling that something didn't feel right. Later I wished I had asked for the officers names or if that would have gotten me into trouble with them.

ourmandave 11y ago
It's not illegal to carry cash, no matter how much.
- rev_bird 11y ago
  I believe there are import/export restrictions on international flights.
  - ourmandave 11y ago
    I missed the intl' flight part. =( I was think of interstate travel.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Is it illegal, or is it just that you have to declare it?
  - 11y ago

iamleppert 11y ago

Between the police shooting innocent people, tasering and bearing up our kids, does anyone even feel safe around them anymore? Whenever I see police, I have the same fight or flight response as if I'd see someone in a dark alley. The police have become dangerous, and none of my friends trust them. They would be the last people I'd call if there was something happening. Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob you. Who does that sound like?

jessaustin 11y ago
Don't take this as a direct response to your comment, but it sparked a thought: perhaps we can expect a new dismissive PCism regarding attitudes toward police rather than e.g. gender. Maybe "poliphobe" or "citizen-sympathizer"? I'm sure the police unions and prison corporations can come up with something better, but this seems like a logical next step for them.
- nickff 11y ago
  You are describing how political correctness is becoming (or has become) Orwellian NewSpeak; the language has been changed to control public debates and thought in general.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
rdtsc 11y ago
> Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob you. Yap pretty much. I came from a country where cops would torture people to get confessions out of them. Basically chances were, if they caught you, and they were bored / were bribed by someone, or just had a bad day, they could make you "confess" to crimes easily. One time my friend and I caught a pickpocketer. Pickpocketer's associate swiped my friend's wallet. There was a group of them, all scattered except one. We caught him and eventaully ended up with him at a police station. It was a quiet evening there. One cop even had his 1st or 2nd grader son there playing around in the hallway. So being bored, the cops decided to get this pickpocketer to tell them where his buddies are hanging out. They needed the wallet to officially to charge him so they could arrest him. So to get him to talk, they asked us to leave the room. Then proceeded to torture him. Holy crap! I can still hear his pleas for help. What started with us being happy we caught him and him getting some justice, turned into us feeling pretty sorry for him... at some point we signed some papers and just left. Long story short, there is a good reason there to be afraid of cops. They are just like an organized criminal gang are are sanctioned to operate by the law. You never know what they'll do, they have guns, friends with guns, and could beat or torture you to death on a whim. Now it is night and day to what is in this country, and I felt pretty safe in general around cops here. But in later years, the stories I hear, camera recordings of cops shooting people, the whole forfeture thing, I see things slowly start to nudge into a bad direction. I start feeling a little bit more like I felt there, in the old country. Also, I can't decide if cops have started to do this more, or that they've always done but there weren't as many cameras around to record it, and only the poor people got to experience that side of the "law".

graycat 11y ago

Yes, for government to confiscate private property without due process is a bummer, an outrageous violation of our Constitutional rights. No doubt about that. In particular, that the police believe that someone is acting suspiciously is nothing like justification for such confiscation. Yes, there have long been news articles on this civil forfeiture scam. No doubt it happens. But have to suspect that it doesn't happen very often to innocent people. Why so suspect? Because there would be more screaming, political debates, SCOTUS cases, etc. In a sense, that there can be such a scam is not too surprising: That is, as we know well, generally, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". So, we can expect attacks on our Constitutional rights, and, to get our rights back or just maintain them, we have to fight, continually. That is, there are plenty of people who will take our rights unless we do fight back. So, right along, there needs to be fighting back. Where is the ACLU in all of this? What about other groups interested in keeping government under control? We can fight back by bringing law suits and by voting. But, in particular, and in practical terms, in a local community, likely it can be enough to be known and respected in the community, active in politics, well known to the local politicians, and to have a little chat with them. A respected local citizen will likely not get pushed around by the police. It's a little like high school -- it helps to fit in at least a little. Broadly an immediate, expedient, practical solution is: In public, don't carry a lot of cash. If have a lot of cash in your house, then, in case your house gets searched, have that cash well hidden. If you have a business that gets paid in cash, say, some tens of thousands a month, maybe make a daily deposit to your business account. Then, get well known at your bank as a successful, local business person who does get revenue in cash -- hopefully then your bank won't file papers saying that you are suspicious. E.g., generally in business, a banker wants good business customers, and business person wants good respect from their banker. Commonly in a small community, the police know a lot of the people. That can help, say, if at 3 AM drive to the post office to deposit a letter -- the local police will just remember who you are and relax. It might help to make a donation to some local police charity drive and, there, shake hands with the local chief of police. Maybe can get a window sticker for your car indicating that you are such a supporter. Likely if there are enough legal cases where citizens bring suit against civil forfeiture, the practice will reach the SCOTUS and get struck down. Of course, legal cases are very expensive, but there are a lot of law school graduates without much to do; with enough forfeiture cases, some of those lawyers would take such cases and change the situation. For long distance travel, there is an old saying, "A stranger in a strange land". So, it has long been recognized that being such a stranger is not the usual but has some dangers. E.g., don't carry much cash or anything very valuable. E.g., if want to carry $15,000 to buy a used car, just go to a bank and get a certified check for that amount and hide it somewhere, maybe in a book, fold it up and put it between two credit cards in your wallet, or just mail it to yourself at your destination. Some of the police might say that anyone who didn't use such a technique is suspicious.

samstave 11y ago

I fucking love the fact that HNers while perhaps not knowing, overmen outrightly deny it, are a part of /r/conspiracy and dont even realize it. the whole system needs disruption, that's what we do.

jostmey 11y ago

The way civil forfeiture is being used in these examples is a violation of a citizen's constitutional right and the perpetrators, no matter their appearance, are criminals and must be dealt with as such. I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who might say otherwise. They will tell you that "this" is how the constitution is interpreted. But the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, was written so that you could understand it, irregardless of what politicians and lawyers say.

colinshark 11y ago

"You know, stuff we needed but didn’t necessarily have a budget for. So, when this money comes in, it’s considered extra" Except municipalities explicitly write expected seizures into their annual budgets. They literally must seize property to make their planned budget.

steveeq1 11y ago

From a statistical perspective, you are far more likely to shot or beaten up by a black man than you are through a crooked cop. Would you go around telling people you have the same fears towards black people and say this is a fair statement? I think what's going on is availability bias. This is where dramatic or sensationalized dangers get overplayed in one's mind instead of paying attention to the actual probabilities. It's basically like shark bites, airplane crashes, or terrorist attacks. The media tends to sensationalize these risks because there is money in it and people tend to over-fear them despite their actual statistical probability. Don't get me wrong, there should be something done about crooked cops. But it's also important to distinguish real risk with the types of risks that sell newspapers.

wheaties 11y ago
No, it's outrageous that this can happen. It doesn't matter that the probability is nil one of "us" woukd see this.
jarrettch 11y ago
Over a thousand people were killed by police in the US in 2015 according to http://killedbypolice.net/ http://killedbypolice.net/ which is more than fatalities from shark bites, airplane crashes and terrorist attacks in America combined in this recent calendar year, so comparing those with police shootings(some justified, many not) is dubious at best. Maybe expecting to be murdered is a dramatic perspective to have, sure. Most people aren't murdered. But expecting the people who are hired and paid with tax dollars to "Protect and Serve" but instead kill, beat, or straight up steal from you(among other things) doesn't seem like something we should just accept because statistically it happens less than other things.
- steveeq1 11y ago
  Yes, and how many of those shootings were justified? How many of those were in self defense? I'd wager the bulk. I'm not saying unjustified shootings are absolutely ZERO. But it's relatively small in comparison to things like, say, black shootings. And I'm not saying "you should be afraid of black people" (because you shouldn't. . .), but what I AM saying is that iamleppert should put his fear of cops into perspective.

wsha 11y ago

There are legitimate concerns about police overreach, etc., but I can't get past the part where we start off talking about someone checking $11,000 in cash. Was this guy just not familiar with air travel? Or is it less likely that money will be seized from a checked bag than from a carry-on? It's just absurd to me to put that much value into a checked bag, especially in the form of cash.

known 11y ago

Corrupt police always try to bully/rob you; Don't confront him; Call a senior police official or call a lawyer;