30 ms·

Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

• FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  This seems looks like it was designed to be abused. If this is used, their must be additional training for cops on how to make a seizure decision, and major repercussions if they seize money from a person who is then proven to be innocent.
• ikeboy 10y ago
  >The largest part that we have found ... the biggest benefit has been the identity theft, Oh, so if I have a card in someone else's name, you'll charge it, thus causing someone who doesn't even know about it to lose? Any lawyers here want to weigh in on whether this would be identity theft/credit card fraud/etc on the part of the police and hence illegal? Isn't scanning/charging a card without authorization illegal?
  • droopyEyelids 10y ago
    This is the most interesting quote. How do these devices help in the case of identity theft?! How can charging a card help either the bank or the account owner in the case of police apprehending a carder? The only possiblity that comes to mind is that the police empty the cardholder's account and then later return that money minus the device manufacturer's 7.7% cut?!
    • ikeboy 10y ago
      I guess if they bought prepaid card with stolen credit cards, then the police would empty those cards.
  • cglace 10y ago
    >Oh, so if I have a card in someone else's name, you'll charge it, thus causing someone who doesn't even know about it to lose? From what I understand the technology is for seizing money from prepaid cards. For other cards it just looks up information about the account. Thats how it helps with identity theft.
    • davb 10y ago
      From the article: > Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
      • cglace 10y ago
        The article is wrong. ERAD card scanners were first developed around 2012 for the science and technology arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to combat the use of prepaid debit cards by drug cartels to transport drug money, according to a Homeland Security media release. Since then, some law enforcement agencies around the country have adopted the technology. According to ERAD Group’s patent for the device, law enforcement can determine the balance of money in an account associated with a prepaid card that is part of branded “open loop” networks such as Visa or MasterCard or “closed loop” cards that only allow purchases at a single company, such as gift cards. When the card is scanned by the officer to check the account balance, the system disguises the balance request as a typical vendor request to prevent alerting suspects that law enforcement is checking the card, the patent states. Once the card’s account balance is determined, the officer can use the device to freeze the funds, preventing withdrawal or use of the money in the account, or seize the funds by having them transferred to a law enforcement financial account, the patent states. Although the device does not allow funds from non-prepaid cards to be frozen or seized, it can provide the officer information about those cards such as the card number, the name on the card, expiration date and the card issuer.
        • vitd 10y ago
          > the system disguises the balance request as a typical vendor request to prevent alerting suspects that law enforcement is checking the card Wouldn't that go against the credit card (or pre-paid card) merchant agreement? And wouldn't ERAD have to have signed such an agreement in order to access the credit card network?
          • cortesoft 10y ago
            They might have a deal with the merchants?
  • imauld 10y ago
    I took this to mean that the police are stealing peoples identities and it's been very beneficial for them.
• cmurf 10y ago
  Turning law enforcement into highwaymen.
• DickingAround 10y ago
  And the scanner maker gets a 7% cut. What could go wrong: "the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes"
  • redditplebs 10y ago
    Time to lookup ERAD Inc. online. Fun times ahead!
    • toomuchtodo 10y ago
      I'm already spinning up a comprehensive FOIA request with MuckRock.com. Feel free to reply to my comment if anyone would like to collaborate.
      • swiftDaemon 10y ago
        I'd love to see what progress you make with this
      • codewritinfool 10y ago
        Thank you for this
      • pc86 10y ago
        Absolutely
      • etrautmann 10y ago
        thank you
      • fapjacks 10y ago
        Yes, please. Thanks.
      • chiph 10y ago
        Can you include something like this? "What states does ERAD currently have contracts with? With what states does ERAD anticipate contracts to be signed in the next 180 days, and for all of these states, what percentages will ERAD be earning on funds seized?"
• alistproducer2 10y ago
  Seems legit.
• Zikes 10y ago
  > "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Literally the opposite of how presumed innocence is supposed to work. Furthermore, good luck mounting a decent case now that they have all your money.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• molecule 10y ago
  > Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money. Given the low-threshold for seizure and how we've seen civil-asset forfeiture exercised by law enforcement, that's terrifying.
  • jobu 10y ago
    Agreed: "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said. It boggles the mind that this doesn't violate due process.
    • viggity 10y ago
      The despicable logic they use is that they're not charging the person with a crime (because people have due process rights), they're charging an inanimate object, the money, the car, etc. Property doesn't have due process rights, apparently. Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes".
      • protomyth 10y ago
        > Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes". That type of thing is ok in Admiralty Law, but should have no place in criminal law. How we got to a point where things can be taken from someone who is not convicted of a crime is beyond belief.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          > That type of thing is ok in Admiralty Law, but should have no place in criminal law. It doesn't take place within criminal law. (There is also "criminal asset forfeiture", which is a different beast, and takes place within normal criminal process against a particular criminal defendant: that is a part of criminal law, and its a lot less controversial than civil asset forfeiture.)
• jmuguy 10y ago
  Are you required to surrender your credit carts, etc to the cops during a traffic stop? What if you refuse?
  • VLM 10y ago
    Its mostly for use against prepaid gift cards and the like. Also those cheesy pre-paid credit cards. Supposedly its already in use at borders. The news is that now if you get pulled over in OK the cops will now keep any gift cards they find. Ever wonder why there's such a push to get RFID everywhere? If they RF scan your car and find a card in the trunk now you're at minimum guilty of obstruction.
    • maxaf 10y ago
      > If they RF scan your car and find a card in the trunk now you're at minimum guilty of obstruction. Errrrrr not really! 4th Amendment gives you the right to refuse a search of your person or vehicle. Even if the cops do find something illegal during a search you've clearly but politely refused, your refusal will give your defense attorney grounds to ask the court to throw out any evidence found in the trunk.
      • waterphone 10y ago
        Which is why they aren't charging people with crimes when stealing property many of the times. No criminal charges, no public defender, no recourse for people with little to no money (and what little they had just got seized) to go to court to reclaim their stolen property.
      • lovich 10y ago
        The constitution also gives you the right to a presumption of innocence based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States but the authorities dont seem to care much about that either
• rando444 10y ago
  You have to wonder how this works. Like how does the officer know how much you have and how much is 'appropriate' to confiscate? I wonder if it does a series of authorizations looking for some sort of upper limit to figure out how much money is in the account and then they determine what to take from that? Either way, this goes way beyond reason for what a trooper should be able to do on the side of a road during a traffic stop.
  • alistairSH 10y ago
    The officer doesn't have to know. Or care. He just takes every penny the system allows and lets you fight the DA over it at a later date. Even if the money is returned, it doesn't cost the cop anything to try. And if they keep the money, some moeny goes back to the police department.
    • noir_lord 10y ago
      Literally Highway Robbery.
    • rando444 10y ago
      Yes, but my statement was more of a technical one regarding how such a system might work. I am speaking about the method used to determine how much is in an account and what can be withdrawn, because they can't check your balance without a pin number, and if their system is issuing multiple repeated authorizations, what protections banks have in place that might block these sorts of transactions to prevent theft.
      • alistairSH 10y ago
        I believe the system is operating on pre-paid cards. I don't know the technical differences in transactions on those vs normal credit cards, but I assume there are some.
      • snuxoll 10y ago
        Fun fact, when running credit or debit cards you can actually get the available balance on them. I've made the mistake of going to the gas station when my checking account only had a couple of dollars in it, ran the card at the pump and it let me put in exactly enough gas to 0 out my account and no more.
• PhrosTT 10y ago
  What the fuck is happening to this country?
  • FreedomToCreate 10y ago
    Just people trying to find new ways to make money.
    • gglitch 10y ago
      Upvoting you and GP wasn't enough; I screen captured the exchange for my personal archives. If I ever write my great American novel, I'll try to give credit.
  • superuser2 10y ago
    People want large, busybody police departments and they don't want to pay the taxes that entails. Police departments found a way to fund themselves without pissing off anyone who matters politically.
    • WDCDev 10y ago
      Police unions want large busybody departments and they don't care who pays. They just know that once a new police officer is hired SOMEONE will pay.
      • Loughla 10y ago
        No, people want large, busybody departments. It makes them feel safe. They don't want to increase their taxes, though, especially in conservative states such as Oklahoma.
        • imtringued 10y ago
          I don't think robbery makes anyone feel safe.
• maxaf 10y ago
  This can't possibly be legal or even technically feasible. The victim can call her bank and report a fraudulent transaction, which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to defend in court. Surely banks can catch on and frontload an "identity protection" mechanism that'll simply block transactions from anything matching "ERAD" or however they identify themselves to the ACH. It's doubtful that local or state PDs have enough political pull or money to battle banks over this through the court system.
  • jrowley 10y ago
    What incentives do the banks have to fight on behalf of their customers?
    • maxaf 10y ago
      Every time I've had a fraudulent charge on my account, I've contested it and had the money returned to me. I can only assume that in some cases the bank simply bites the bullet and writes this off as a cost of doing business. There's probably an upper limit to their general benevolence. Given enough fraud-like losses stemming from asset seizure, the reasonable action would be to simply block the charges before they can post to the customer's account. My bank does call me every now and again to verify charges on my debit card. Some of these calls make me wonder if the system has a hair trigger, which also means it's probably smart enough to just blanket block anything that looks like an asset seizure. This can't be too difficult, and will save banks money. The incentive to save money is a powerful one and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting customers.
      • zacharycohn 10y ago
        This is not a fraudulent charge, though. It's perfectly legal, under state law.
        • jrowley 10y ago
          Exactly, if a bank blocked the charge it would be conceivable that they could be charged with conspiring with a criminal or some business of that sort. It would be so much easier and safer to just let the police take the money and say 'sorry, there's nothing we can do.'
• nappy-doo 10y ago
  My understanding with asset seizure is that you can show why the money was yours, and it is returned. What happens to the 7.7% taken by the servicer? Is it automatically returned as well?
  • Vraxx 10y ago
    The state refunds it to you, the 7.7% percent is the fee the state paid in order to withhold your funds so conveniently. The trick is you have to prove that those withheld funds are wrongfully withheld (the burden of proof is on the accused in this case) without access to the seized assets. In short, the 7.7% is negligible because in the cases of this abuse, you probably weren't getting that money back anyways.
    • nappy-doo 10y ago
      What a great scam! I need a state sponsored monopoly where my income stream is non-recourse without chargeback possibility.
  • darryl42 10y ago
    How much are you willing to spend to get the money back?
  • waterphone 10y ago
    While your understanding is technically correct, it's nowhere near that simple and usually costs more than the money lost in legal fees to win a case like this and get your seized assets back.
  • adrr 10y ago
    Also depending on the method they use to drain the card. What about interchange fees that cards brands charge for transactions?
• wccrawford 10y ago
  This reads like The Onion. I can't believe they're serious. >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. ... Legit reason? How am I supposed to prove where every cent came from? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
  • konradb 10y ago
    > If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money Exactly, why is it not incumbent upon them to prove that you have gained that money through illegitimate means?
    • harryh 10y ago
      If the police catch a person running away from a recently robbed bank holding a bag of money do you think they should have to convict the person before taking back the money? If there is reason to believe that someone is in possession of property that doesn't belong to them it seems perfectly reasonable for the police to confiscate said property.
      • incongruity 10y ago
        In that case, wouldn't it be evidence? I genuinely don't know all the details of how this works, but I do find it disturbing that the police turn around and spend the forfeited cash. Should they be allowed to do that with the sack of money from the bank, in your example?
        • harryh 10y ago
          Sure, if it's clear who the property is owned by it goes back to the rightful owner. But in cases where that is unclear or nonsensical (like money obtained by selling illegal drugs) it goes to the state. Where else would it go?
          • 10y ago
• Zikes 10y ago
  So we can't carry cash, because they'll seize that directly. This device could probably do some sort of run around the new chip system in cards. Bitcoin is nearly useless in the real world. So where does that leave us? Google & Apple Pay on our phones? At least our phones can be password protected.
  • Vraxx 10y ago
    Carry a credit card and pay that off monthly so as not to accrue interest. This way the only thing that could potentially be "seized" is your access to a line of credit. Now, I'd normally say that there is no way they could justify seizing assets that aren't even yours, it'd at least be entertaining to see if it did happen.
  • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    And you'll get an obstruction of justice charge if you don't supply the password then and then be found in contempt of court if you don't give it up when you're before a judge.
    • adventured 10y ago
      Not in this case. The police legally can't pull you over and force you to unlock your phone via password. They'd have to go through a court process, and that's precisely where any attempt at theft will fall apart (more specifically, as the law stands today the police won't even attempt this line of approach because they know it'd fall apart in the court system before they're able to steal the money).
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • gst 10y ago
    After I had my debit card skimmed I started to have my debit card always deactivated by default. I usually only pay by credit card anyway. In cases where I need money from the ATM I enable my debit card via my bank's mobile app, get the money, and then disable it again.
• jschwartzi 10y ago
  I can't think of a better reason to stay out of Oklahoma.
  • tremon 10y ago
    I can't think of a better reason to stay out of the US.
    • odrekf 10y ago
      I could think some.
• jmuguy 10y ago
  I think part of this is just shoddy reporting from a local news source, I believe this is tech they're talking about. https://www.erad-group.com/fci https://www.erad-group.com/fci While the implications here are certainly pretty creepy, this seems more like something to use in investigations of money laundering, etc.
  • lost_name 10y ago
    I think you're correct. The quotes in the article make more sense in the light of stolen cards being "concealed" in other magnetic strips which aren't credit cards. Many times, criminals illegally clone valid payment cards on to non-descript pieces of plastic like hotel room keys and subway cards, making detection and interrogation nearly impossible. Since virtually any plastic card with a magnetic stripe can re-purposed as a credit, debit or prepaid payment card, being able to determine the identity of the card is critical to your investigation. The whole thing is moot once chips are (finally) in major use.
  • Dwolb 10y ago
    Gosh this copy from the linked web site seems like everything that's wrong with products in this space, "Criminals today use an array of payment cards to purchase, transfer or conceal billions of dollars of illicit funds from Law Enforcement" Which criminals? The ones a local policeman happens to stop in a routine checkpoint? I'd like to see actual stats on what percentage of everyday criminals who are met by local law enforcement "conceal billions of dollars". I'd bet this percentage is so small the tool does more harm to the general populace than good on the off chance such a criminal is caught.
    • tremon 10y ago
      Which criminals? The ones a local policeman happens to stop in a routine checkpoint? Yes, US citizens are criminals by definition of law, apparently.
  • joe_the_user 10y ago
    From your link: "The ERAD platform will help you document every confiscated credit, debit and prepaid card, and instantaneously provide key card issuer information that’s critical to your investigation. And if some of those cards are prepaid cards, ERAD™ gives you the ability, right at the point of arrest, to determine the value and immediately secure or freeze those funds." So these devices do let LEOs seize funds but only from prepaid cards, apparently, for now.
• kyleblarson 10y ago
  It's called a flyover state for a reason.
• linkregister 10y ago
  From the article: State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing the system. "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said. If State Sen. Loveless's statement is accurate, it appears that these victims were unable to get the charges reversed by their banks' fraud departments. So what would this device look like? Is it performing ACH or wire transfer transactions? Or is this just sending card information to the company, which then automates the state government's garnishment process? I'll be interested to get the full story when details are available. I'm glad there's some pushback from the state legislature!
  • protomyth 10y ago
    Looks, like it might be a bit problematic or something deeper given his wife's arrest http://kfor.com/2015/10/07/oklahoma-senators-wife-arrested-claims-she-was-abused-at-county-jail/ http://kfor.com/2015/10/07/oklahoma-senators-wife-arrested-c... Not from OK, so I get the feeling this affects things, but not sure how.
    • linkregister 10y ago
      Thanks for the added context!
      • protomyth 10y ago
        I'm not sure I provided any real context. It is data, but I have no real clue what it means. Thanks though.
    • dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      Or a well off white guy had to deal with the police in a negative context for the first time in his life and that changed his opinion of them and the power they do or don't deserve
• diyorgasms 10y ago
  I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry. The missing scruples here could fill several large containers.
  • nxzero 10y ago
    How would this solve anything?
    • milge 10y ago
      In the same way police corruption would be fixed if the good eggs didn't protect the bad ones.
      • nxzero 10y ago
        Poor comparison and illogical too. "Bad cops" have committed acts which are illegal; where were illegal acts committed in the story? Even if organizationally there wasn't a tendency to protect the organization, this would not end the issue.
        • gherkin0 10y ago
          The acts may not be "illegal" but they are unjust and immoral.
          • nxzero 10y ago
            You mean like punishment without due process? (aka a blacklist)
    • kirykl 10y ago
      it'd be like Pharma companies refusing to manufacture lethal injection
      • 10y ago
• 50CNT 10y ago
  That is physically revolting. First you have civil-asset forfeiture that let's police seize money from you when you are carrying large amounts of cash (with a generous false positive rate potentially disastrous to victims). Now to get around that, you could try handling everything by card or bank transaction (unless you're one of the unfortunate few without access to a bank account due to low credit rating or other legitimate reasons). And now they can seize that too? That's not ripe for abuse, that's designed for abuse. As a non-American, what's wrong with your country?
  • cmdrfred 10y ago
    Last revolution was the civil war. The people at the top forgot what the people at the bottom are capable of.
    • facetube 10y ago
      I hope it doesn't come to this. IMO the people cheering on Trump as a way of "getting the nightmare out of the way and moving on" need to study and understand the human cost incurred the last time that happened.
      • gohrt 10y ago
        One pillar of the traditional Republican support for Israel is the Christian effort to usher in the apocalyptic war that will bring forth the second coming of Jesus Christ.
        • retro64 10y ago
          ...? Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but nowhere in Christian Bible does it teach that somehow the human race can either "usher in" or prevent the end times.
    • knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      That'll be bad for everyone involved. Even the victors will have a rough time of it; and from your perspective, there's a non-trivial chance they don't align with your beliefs. People advocating for this have no concept of warfare in general, nevermind in a modern setting. The people hurt the most are always the innocent non-combatant civilians.
• iancarroll 10y ago
  The DHS says this is only for prepaid cards, which are more likely to be fraudulent: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-reader-aids-seizing-fraudulent-cards https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-read...
  • protomyth 10y ago
    Which are used mostly by poor people since banking is often out of bounds for them. Nice we attack the people who cannot pay. Sure glad the local police didn't have one of those when they were doing their first of the month car stops.
• lasermike026 10y ago
  What does this say about the security of our electronic funds? Gold bugs are going to have a field day with this.
  • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    Banks are to your personal funds what 'the cloud' is to your personal data.
• technofiend 10y ago
  Thus begins a new round of escalation and avoidance - cash is seized? No longer carry it. Credit Cards maxed? Keep it in a separate account and load only as required. In an account but you can direct funds from your phone? Hand that over. At some point you just rely on biometrics for every transaction, it turns into an automated shakedown scheme or you just learn to avoid the state of Oklahoma.
  • brbsix 10y ago
    What do you think will happen if you're arrested with a thumbprint lock on your phone? They may not be able to force you to recite your password (at least without lengthy legal proceedings beforehand), but they can certainly grab your finger and use it to unlock the device. They may not be able to do this if you've only been detained, but I wouldn't chance it.
    • Shivetya 10y ago
      when you are pulled over you turn the phone OFF. Its simple and its fast.
      • tremon 10y ago
        On the other hand, when I'm pulled over, I definitely want my phone to be recording audio.
        • adventured 10y ago
          Or consider using a dash cam with audio recording.
        • snuxoll 10y ago
          Agreed. Opening the settings and disabling the fingerprint scanner would be easier and allow you to still use the device to record audio.
          • 10y ago
• zyxley 10y ago
  Sounds like there's now a market in Oklahoma for cards that are debit-only and will automatically reject all credit transactions.
  • kirykl 10y ago
    They'll just use pinless debit
• joesmo 10y ago
  This should firmly cement law enforcement's status as thieves rather than civi servants. As if civil asset forfeiture didn't do that already, already making police the #1 class of thieves in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... To steal and murder! The correct police motto.
• oolongCat 10y ago
  I come from an Asian country, we are used to bribes, crooked politicians, government workers etc etc. To me the USA was the place where Neil Armstrong lived, it was the country that gave me so much that I was thankful for, it was a country where the words "Freedom of speech" ruled above everything. To me it was the country I wanted to be in if I had a wish. Little by little, that idea I had of the united states is being changed, may be its my fault since I idealised the USA too much. May be its the news I read about, large scale surveillance, government officials who has no regard for civil liberties, people more powerful than the FBI, people above the law, power crazed security guards at airports etc etc. I really really dislike this, wish I would once again get to believe that there is a place where people are treated right.
  • pdkl95 10y ago
    I once worked with a woman who immigrated from Russia who had learned computer science on punch cards. She was always full of energy and happy to be working on interesting project in the USA, because that kind of thing did not happen in the USSR. In that environment, you learned to "not be noticed". Bad things regularly happened to people that were noticed. Her attitude changed in soon after the Bush administration started their wars in the middle east and the PATRIOT act was passed. When that came up in conversation one day, she suddenly got really serious and quietly said, "It's happening again." The same environment she had fled from the USSR was happening here, and it terrified her. There was a change. The USA has always had problems, but there defiantly was a change that happened somewhat recently. I've been trying to fight it ever since, but all that has done is convince me that it's going to get a lot uglier before it any true reform is possible.
  • balls187 10y ago
    A lot changed after 9/11. The US Government took the public's irrational fear of Terrorism and used that to usher in sweeping reforms against personal liberty, under the guise "War on Terror."
• DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  As a libertarian, I've seen a long line of articles that make me go Holy Cow! It's gotten so I feel bad about it. I even apologize. Each time, I think "Well that's it, there's nothing that could go beyond this." Holy cow! Several years ago I sold a small lot which had an office on it. The guy who bought it paid cash. Cash is kinda unusual for this kind of transaction, so I asked him where he got it. He told me that he was a general contractor and had been saving for over ten years. Then he told me that the previous month, while he was moving his savings to his mom's house, he got pulled over for a bad taillight. They almost took all of his money. Holy cow! This was my introduction to Civil Asset Forfeiture. There are many parts of this story that are amazing. Right away I note that if you're truly wealthy? You have nothing to fear. You have enough assets to pay the one lawyer who golfs with the local DA and get this thing fixed quickly. But if you're not? If you're like my friend saving up for a large purchase? Good freaking luck. Read an article once from a former LE guy. I remember one of his points. He said that cops are hunters. They hunt bad guys. We are their prey. As we are finding out, the definition of "bad guy" is wonderfully malleable. Just about anybody can be one. The more political power you have (whether through contacts, as a politician, or by having money), the less likely you are to be one. There has been a long tradition in the states of assuming the best when dealing with the local constable. They have tough jobs, usually the training isn't terribly difficult, it's a good spot for people who like guns and violence but want to be one of the good guys. This tradition is coming to a close. While the constable himself might be a nice enough, stand-up guy, the system as a whole is terribly corrupt and overbearing. I might go so far as to say evil. This cannot continue. Reforms are desperately needed.
  • rdtsc 10y ago
    > There has been a long tradition in the states of assuming the best when dealing with the local constable. Heh! I came from a country where police torture people routinely. Any suspect who lands in police custody has a good chance of being tortured. They know how to do it, so it causes psychological distress but doesn't leave huge marks on the body. My friend and I once caught a pickpocket and took him to a police station. Cops were bored and proceeded to torture him behind a closed door in order for him to reveal where his buddies were hiding. At first we were so happy we caught the tiny criminal. By the end of the evening I felt pretty sorry for the guy. Anyway, that is how I see cops. Rationally I know they are not all like that, and we are not in <oldcountry> anymore. But deep down instinctively I still have that fear of them. It is scary and dissappointing that people in this country are slowly starting to adopt the same attitude toward police because of how police is acting. > While the constable himself might be a nice enough, stand-up guy, the system as a whole is terribly corrupt and overbearing. If constable ever kept this mouth shut when he saw their co-workers abuse their power, they have stopped being a good stand-up guy at that very instant.
• rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Symptom of a bigger problem: nobody in the criminal justice system is punished for making the wrong move. There is no law enforcement downside to civil asset forfeiture. Officer-involved shootings are discouraged from prosecution or otherwise involve highly-paid "expert" witnesses saying the officer had no other choice - at taxpayer expense. Prosecutors are valued by the number of wins, not by how many innocent people are spared the gauntlet of the American justice system. Prisons (especially private prisons) are rewarded for high recidivism rates, instead of being punished for wasting taxpayer money on an expensive and brutal daycare. If the state does badly enough it can get sued. So the taxpayers foot the bill while the offenders are free to do as they do. I've said it before and I'll say it again: prevent this kind of garbage from happing without consequence by mandating docked wages/pension benefits to pay for all or part of lawsuit damages. Change the incentives and people will change themselves.
  • nxzero 10y ago
    Are you aware of even one example of a laws that are actively enforced that would have the same time of what you're suggesting? Seems like all that would happen is new channels of revenue would be found that didn't have the blowback you're suggesting.
  • adventured 10y ago
    > Symptom of a bigger problem: nobody in the criminal justice system is punished for making the wrong move Step 1) End all police unions. There desperately needs to be a federal law prohibiting the formation of any police union anywhere in the United States. (we'll add this to the list of things that will never happen)
    • Animats 10y ago
      Soldiers aren't allowed to unionize. Some tried it during the Vietnam war. It didn't work.
  • tajen 10y ago
    Bonus question: In countries that are still exempt from highway police robbery such as in Europe, what can we do to avoid gliding towards it? Isn't HPR a natural evolution of the increased number of police agents after massive terrorist attacks, like the two we've just had in France?
• pklausler 10y ago
  What are the practical means of defense against these thieves with badges?
  • tremon 10y ago
    Be white and wear a suit.
• Roboprog 10y ago
  Welcome to the post-Reagan era, kids. This stuff really took off during the 80s war on drugs. (which is about as successful as the war on alcohol was - for gangsters dealing) If only Thatcherism / Reaganism never happened... (and Laffer, Friedman and all the other related right wing propaganda that's been catapulted down our throats) I suppose things will eventually get bad enough that people will eventually realize "Everything that demented old man proposed was wrong?!?" (demented as in literal "alzheimer's patient")
  • brbsix 10y ago
    Is Nixon nowhere to be found?
    • Roboprog 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure Nixon wouldn't even cut it as a Democrat today. Too liberal. "Start what? Environmental Protection Agency? Are you kidding..."
  • woodman 10y ago
    Have you got a specific beef with Friedman, or are you just generally complaining about prominent conservatives from the 80s? What position did he take that would support civil asset forfeiture?
    • Roboprog 10y ago
      No, you're right. Just complaining about right wing thuggery in general :-)
      • woodman 10y ago
        Ah, well you might want to stick to a more defensible complaint - because two sentences is all it took to make you look like an uninformed loon.
  • duncan_bayne 10y ago
• l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
  This is outrageous. The police can get away with this because they have a weapon, a gun, which can kill you if you resist. Or at the very least, call other cops, arrest you and throw you in jail and ruin your life while you have to prove your you are not guilty & try to get your money back. This defies all logic and is a clear example of the corrupt state this country is in (USA).
  • hackuser 10y ago
    > The police can get away with this because they have a weapon I disagree. Police can do it because they have the power of the state behind them; the state can try you, imprison you, ruin your life, seize your other assets, etc. That policeman's gun is a minor detail and is rarely used. Most importantly, they have the power of the state because voters permit it. Do you know if this is allowed in your state? Who are your state legislators? Are you going to contact them?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• retube 10y ago
  It blows my mind this is even technically possible. Surely the target needs to enter a pin or something in order for the bank to authorise the transaction. That said seizing cash whether physical notes or electronic must be subject to due process and a court order.
• nfriedly 10y ago
  > News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc. [...] 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes. I think that might even be worse then the police being able to sieze all of you money.
  • jandrese 10y ago
    It is incredibly mercenary isn't it? Does the device just send the request off to a call center where the ERAD folks do the actual bank account drains? How are they able to justify such a huge commission? Who in the government negotiated this? Did they get a nice cushy job in the ERAD group after they retired from government work?
• eonw 10y ago
  From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prove that i have the right to have them. OK = backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people that keep voting for these types of idiots.
  • hackuser 10y ago
    Asset seizure, under the same conditions, happens in many states. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 And many more stories ... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.c...
    • eonw 10y ago
      i know, its both sad and outrageous, good on the states putting an end to it on their own.
  • drcode 10y ago
    > Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from That's language is too vague to mean much: Are you saying this is illegal, or are you saying it is unconstitutional, or are you saying it is immoral?
    • wernercd 10y ago
      The US is built upon "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Speedy Trial". That means you can't be jailed for murdering someone without a trial and you can't spend 10 years in jail before the trial. In the same way Assange is basically jailed without a trial or being proven guilty of anything. "Asset forfeiture" in the US goes against everything that the above stands for. The fact that a government official (Cops, feds, etc) can take your money... link that money to "drugs" in some way... and keep that money (or assets) without a trial? Is un American.
• gherkin0 10y ago
  This is total, corrupt bullshit. How the fuck is a traffic cop supposed to ascertain the origin of the money in your accounts, let alone if it was from the "the commission of a crime?"
  • visarga 10y ago
    > "We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting. We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business." If you seem suspicious, or if they claim so, then your money suddenly is not yours any more, until you prove their source. If you can't prove the legitimity of your money, they become fair game to be confiscated. In this whole process you personally are not charged with anything, but the confiscation is triggered by their being suspicious about you.
• visarga 10y ago
  >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you." The so called presumption of guilt. I am sure everyone has the proofs and doesn't need the money while they are held by the police.
• unpopularpuffin 10y ago
  This is theft. When someone tries to rob you, I see no ethical problem with using deadly force to defend yourself and your property. It follows that I see no ethical problem with using deadly force against a police officer who attempts to use civil-asset forfeiture to rob you. Obviously the law doesn't agree with me, but I care a lot more about ethics than the law. There are other considerations besides ethics here, like shooting a police officer will likely end up with you in jail. I would never shoot a cop myself. But as laws like this turn our law enforcement into thugs, I find more and more sympathy for communities that use violence against cops.
• Negative1 10y ago
  7.7%!? WOW! They really hustled those cops. I always hear how difficult it is to work with schools, law enforcement, basically most gov agencies. Surprising to see how well that company played the cops in this instance.
  • jjawssd 10y ago
    The cops don't get played at all. They still make more than they would otherwise with this approach -- which used to be zero.
• twinkletwinkle 10y ago
  Reason #19836 not to go to Oklahoma...
• programmarchy 10y ago
  Seems like a good use case for Bitcoin.
  • mywittyname 10y ago
    Bitcoin support is coming in 2017.
    • odrekf 10y ago
      Just keep your private keys encrypted. Ever heard of Trezor? Encrypted paper wallets? Brain wallets?
• imroot 10y ago
  This is a copy of the contract that the OHP with ERAD Group: http://oklahomawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/ERADContractBid.pdf http://oklahomawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/E... Highlights: * ERAD is taking 7.7% of all funds seized. * Anywhere between 9.95 and 14.95 per each virtual terminal used to scan for the funds. * $1000-ish per physical terminal used.
  • zrail 10y ago
    Searching for "debit" brings up this: > In addition to presenting the value associated with a card, the terminal will read other card types such as credit and debit cards. While no value can be provided, the terminal will display a “card not supported” message to alert the trooper that this is not a prepaid card. The trooper can then compare the four digits displayed on the terminal with the last four digits shown on the face of the card to determine if the card has been cloned. If the last four digits on the face of the card do not match the four digits displayed on the terminal, the trooper should note the discrepancy and pursue further action in the investigation. I'm not really sure why they compare the last 4 digits to detect a clone, that seems wrong to me. But in any case, that strongly implies that they can't seize from debit cards linked to bank accounts. They can only seize from prepaid cards.
    • FireBeyond 10y ago
      "I'm not really sure why they compare the last 4 digits to detect a clone, that seems wrong to me." It catches lazy counterfeiting. Stamp a whole bunch of cards with the same number and info, while the magstripe is what gets read and is the real account you're stealing from, the theory being that no-one really cares about the number printed on the card. Some retailers do this too, ask or enter the last four of the card to make sure the imprint matches the magstripe, as if they don't it's most likely a cloned card.
      • zrail 10y ago
        Oh huh! I had no idea.
      • 10y ago
• ible 10y ago
  Cops and robbers really means something different these days.
  • masmullin 10y ago
    Johnny: OK Billy, lets play Cops and Robbers Billy: SURE! I get to be the Cop and the Robber, you play the innocent citizen and I'll take all your money after pulling you over for speeding! Johnny & Billy simultaneously: YAAAYYYYYYYYY
• agoa 10y ago
  If only we could get similar technology in London? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-money-laundering-centre-for-the-drug-trade-says-crime-expert-10366262.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the...
• hyperliner 10y ago
  DHS' page on this: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-reader-aids-seizing-fraudulent-cards https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-read...
• googletazer 10y ago
  "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past" Absolutely terrible. Finally bitcoin et al have a legitimate use - protecting your property from grubby government hands.
• ifdefdebug 10y ago
  "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you." - Well my grandma saved it for me when I was a child. - Prove it. - Sorry but she's dead and I moved it to a new bank account two years ago. - Yeah sure. This is just disgusting.
  • vinchuco 10y ago
    "guilty until proven innocent" He also said they look for inconsistencies in your story. So, the more you talk you have more to explain. It's curious to see the case of lawful vs unlawful corruption evolve, in different countries.
  • harryh 10y ago
    Your comment illustrates a complete misunderstanding of the burden of proof in these cases. In the situation you describe a simple bank statement from "2 years ago" would be more than enough to meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard for these cases.
    • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
      More than a misunderstanding: an intentional abuse.
• awqrre 10y ago
  They figured that if they can steal your cash without any consequences that they should go further, wow. What will it be next, your home?
  • waterphone 10y ago
    Well, they can and do seize cars regularly. If you give an illegal immigrant a ride (even innocently, even if you have no idea who they are and from your perspective you're just giving a hitchhiker a ride) and Border Patrol stops you, they will steal your car. They won't charge you with a crime unless you're an actual human trafficker, but your car gets taken away.
  • MertsA 10y ago
    That's been a thing for a very long time now. Heck there was even a case where a family's son was caught selling a small amount of heroin on their front porch so the police threw them out on the street and stole their house. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous... What's more shocking is the following quote from that article: >Philadelphia officials seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period
• masmullin 10y ago
  If citizens united proved that money is speech, does civil forfeiture not impede on the first amendment?
  • harryh 10y ago
    Citizens United did not prove that simple ownership of money is speech. So no, it does not.
• japhyr 10y ago
  So a highway patrol officer can ask to see my license, and I'm supposed to show it. Now they're asking to see my entire wallet?! I'm assuming we're all well within our rights to refuse to hand over our wallets?
  • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    This is a good question and I like a non-IANAL response. As far as I can tell police officers assume any resistance to request as proof of guilt. This kind of thinking has happened historically in the past and there's no reason to believe it's not happening now.
    • Declanomous 10y ago
      I believe searching your car and searching your person constitute two entirely different searches. If your wallet is on the seat next to you, the police could theoretically use that as grounds for a search. If your wallet is in your pocket, and they take your wallet off you as part of a search of your vehicle, you'd probably have a better chance of successfully claiming unreasonable search and seizure. I'm not a lawyer either though, so take that for what it is worth.
      • odrekf 10y ago
        In many places you won't have a chance of doing anything. Just do a quick search in youtube and watch all the people being robbed, beaten, raped, and killed by the police. That's the power they have now.
• joveian 10y ago
  Radley Balko talks about this article and has links to more details of past asset forfeiture abuses in Oklahoma: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/06/08/new-frontiers-in-asset-forfeiture/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/06/08/...
• millzlane 10y ago
  From my cold dead fingers.
• ck2 10y ago
  Remember this is without trial, without immediate oversight. Hopefully the incredulity of this will put a spotlight on civil forfeiture and end it once and for all. But it probably will take a decade to get to the supreme court and this will ruin lives in the meanwhile. And then there is who is going to fill the next three supreme court judge slots and how they feel about "the police can do no wrong" authoritarianism.
  • sametmax 10y ago
    This is a very naive view. It will ruin life, some people will protest, but the majority, will, as with the proverbial frog in the hot water, stay quiete. And it will just be one additional step toward a totalitarian state. It's just tiny steps. It will take time. But here the regularity matters. The simple existence of the Patriot Act, which destroys the very basis of the US legal system (the habeas corpus) and ignore blatantly the constitution, proves that the Suprem Court is not the democratic safety net it's supposed to be.
• kstrauser 10y ago
  Do you want to be called pigs? Because this is how you get called pigs. I'm a very law-and-order guy, but I have zero sympathy for police departments who pull shenanigans like this and then bitch and moan that their communities don't respect them. This gives limitless ammo to critics who want to paint police as noncaring, profit-driven thugs, probably endangering officers' lives in the process. What an utterly despicable, contemptible move. It's simply not defensible in any way.
  • jjawssd 10y ago
    They don't care what they are called -- they just sit back and count the dough
    • kstrauser 10y ago
      I bet the men and women on the street care a whole lot what they're called by the people they're supposed to protect. I bet they don't like it when their kid comes home crying because the other kids add school make fun of him for having a police officer for a parent. They're the ones who need to speak up - get their union involved if necessary - and tell their bureaucracies to knock it off.
• orbitingpluto 10y ago
  Remember, tribute is required when traveling through the United States. Wow, so it's now safest to travel around the country with your encrypted Bitcoin hid steganographically....
• fapjacks 10y ago
  This is the crux here. The "rule of law" is equivalent to "rule of men in black with automatic weapons". If you call the police, you are just outsourcing your violence to the men in black uniforms with automatic weapons. Because at the end of the day, they will use force. The "rule of law" is not "let's have a reasonable conversation about the issues".
  • jMyles 10y ago
    "Rule of law" is supposed to mean that, absent adherence to its letter, self-defense with weapons of your own is not only proper but essential in order for liberty to persevere. Although your anarchic mindset is appealing to me, I'm less ready to give up on the phrase and concept of "rule of law," which I think still has a place in a free information age.
    • dimino 10y ago
      It's literally meant to mean the opposite of that.
      • jMyles 10y ago
        Huh?
  • tn13 10y ago
    I totally agree here. I will never call cops unless I wont mind seeing someone dragged or being pulled forcibly. Don't call cops because you saw a suspicious black man on the road, don't call cops because your neighbour's 5 year is playing alone on the playground, don't call cops because someone else is smoking weed. Not only this will turn citizen against citizen but will also destroy lives.
  • dang 10y ago
    We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11864417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11864417 and marked it off-topic.
• quickben 10y ago
  As a canadian reading this, my instinctive reactions were: 1. Is this a parody of some kind? After it turned out it's legit news: 2. So why they simply aren't maxing out people credit cards too? I mean, by the same flawed logic, it would stop crime if people are more in debt. You can of course prove you aren't going to use your credit card for further crimes and have the money returned. Then again, I should stop giving people ideas.
• Digit-Al 10y ago
  As an Englishman, I have a couple of questions for you Americans on here. 1) Does anyone know who came up with these "civil asset forfeitures"? (Personally, they seem most un-civil to me.) 2) Can any of you defend America as "the land of the free" when more of the population are in prison than in almost any other country in the word and the police not only have the power to strip you of your property and assets without even needing a solid reason, but can shoot you dead and barely get a slap on the wrist? Not having a go at America or Americans, but it seems to me that those who truly believe it to be a land of the free are deluding themselves. [edit: damn keyboard]
  • vkou 10y ago
    1. Most recently, Ronald Reagan's take on the War on Drugs. 2. It's the land of the free if you're not one of the 'bad' minorities. That same moniker was used when it enslaved millions of people. The fact that they are now sitting in prison, instead of being forced to pick cotton is tangential.
    • brandonmenc 10y ago
      > Most recently, Ronald Reagan's take on the War on Drugs. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 - which started all of this - was introduced by a Democrat and passed through a majority Democratic House. All sides are guilty of opening this genie's bottle.
  • aero142 10y ago
    1) Civil asset forfeiture was created to seize the assets of drug cartels where the believed owner of the property in possession is in another country and has a modest army preventing extradition to stand trial. However, any government entity seeks to expand it's revenue first and foremost and this is a tremendous way to do that and it's being(predictably) abused. 2) Every country has a narrative about itself that isn't 100% correct, consistent or logical. That isn't how people work. Hopefully this ideal will help the revocation of civil asset forfeiture soon. The trend seems to be going that way.
    • 10y ago
• jitix 10y ago
  This is physically repulsive and literal theft by the state. Do other developed countries (EU, Canada, etc.) have similar laws?
• hackaflocka 10y ago
  I wonder if the same companies that make these cards also make the devices that allow extrication of money from seized cards.
• solotronics 10y ago
  One more reason to keep a reserve of Bitcoins. With a hardware wallet like a Trezor your bitcoins are secured on a physical device with a PIN and password. The police in the US can do civil asset forfeiture on gold, cash, and now bank accounts so obviously a more secure asset is needed. Bitcoin is that secure asset that can be moved in a few minutes in any amount to anywhere.
• apo 10y ago
  Oklahoma is not an outlier: http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/ http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
• unimpressive 10y ago
  "News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes." This is truly disgusting. I have no words.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• rrggrr 10y ago
  This is the worst systemic abuse of police authority in contravention of the constitution - ever. Innocent accused will have to spend money in attorney's fees, lost work, lost interest, opportunity costs ... to retrieve their property. This is essentially an unlawful seizure.
• BrittTheIsh 10y ago
  Isn't there a limit to what police can ask you to provide during a traffic stop? How is it legal that they can ask to see your debit / credit cards?
  • Sacho 10y ago
    Yes, there is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop Consider, however, that the law in theory differs very much from its practice. In a Terry stop, just like most encounters with the police, the officer holds all the cards. Non-compliance can be met with force, and there's always the threat of being charged for obstruction or whatever else the policeman thinks up, based on their word alone(which has more weight than yours in court). Policemen are given a wide latitude to act, and a good faith presumption to all their actions, so they can get away with stretching any applicable law to its breaking point.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• downandout 10y ago
  Here's a fun little video from the manufacturer extolling the virtues and showing a demo of their device: https://youtu.be/XYbgnCi7NYI https://youtu.be/XYbgnCi7NYI These are some truly evil people. Apparently they can only target prepaid cards with this thing, which unsurprisingly will disproportionately affect people with lower incomes (the "unbanked"). According to the manufacturer's FAQ [1]: Intel™ and ERAD-Recovery™ will only retrieve balances from open loop prepaid debit cards. Debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed using the ERAD-Intel™ or ERAD-Recovery™ system. Law enforcement already depends heavily upon lower income neighborhoods to justify their existence, and upon criminal convictions of poor people that can't defend themselves to keep up demand for prison and jail guards. Now they want to take the money of those they can't arrest, knowing that their targets cannot afford to hire lawyers to get it back. [1] https://www.erad-group.com/faqs https://www.erad-group.com/faqs
  • adrr 10y ago
    I wonder if it works on payroll cards that many low income people get in lieu of a traditional payday check. They are very similar to prepaid debit cards.
    • downandout 10y ago
      In almost cases, payroll cards are just prepaid cards that an employer has setup with a given prepaid card company for employees that don't have bank accounts, so yes.
      • adrr 10y ago
        Scary. These prepaid debit cards are being used everywhere in lieu of traditional checks from unemployment benefits, short term disability(maternity benefits) etc.
        • orbitingpluto 10y ago
          The thing that I don't understand is that these prepaid debit cards are only loaded from the government or your employer, hence guaranteeing the money is legal. Yet these cards are what is being targeted, because only the poor use them.
• balls187 10y ago
  > If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. I am dumbfounded by this statement.
• _audakel 10y ago
  >It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes. If your cash is seized the police will go ahead and keep the full amount less the 7.7% fee. So what happens if the person is proven innocent? Does the police dept have to use its own funding to repay the 7.7% fee? This seems unlikely to me (but that is based on no facts). Or does the company have to repay the money? It would seem like they could legally say they preformed a service and should not be required to refund the money. Sadly it looks like if you are seen as "potential guilty" and your assets are seized, even if you are proven innocent you still lost 7.7% of your money. Then tack on legal fees associated with proving your innocent.....
• jbigelow76 10y ago
  They took a whole Christian band? Are they going to be shackled and forced to play county fairs and police fund raisers for the rest of their lives?
  • smellf 10y ago
    Why is his statement so ungrammatical?
    • tn13 10y ago
      I think these people get only few seconds to make their point. They have to make it quickly while using all the right buzzwords to hit the note. Also it is a good idea to keep it low on details because they the opponents focus on the details he got wrong while conveniently avoiding the larger important point.
  • tn13 10y ago
    I think he is talking about the case where police confiscated entire charitable collection ($30k I think) of a band who were carrying it in their band-wagon. They did gave it back after the public outcry.
  • dang 10y ago
    We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862874 and marked it off-topic.
• sundvor 10y ago
  As a Norwegian/Australian, I'm just shaking my head reading this. Sorry, I have nothing but reactionary drivel to add - but I wouldn't be surprised if this was to further (if that's even possible) increase US gun violence. For personal protection against robbery. This now appears as a marginally valid reason for your gun ownership; if they're going to take all your assets on a whim, leaving you with nothing to fend for, what have you got to lose? I mean, how do you survive in the "no handout" US with no money anyway? This is the rich looking after the rich in the most corrupt and reprehensible way possible, see how this is going to work out for you as resentment grows in the population roots.
  • djrogers 10y ago
    > "no handout" US Roughly $2trillion of the nation's $3.8trillion spending in the 2015 [1] budget was healthcare, social security, food assistance, and unemployment. This doesn't include any of the substantial spending on welfare and 'handouts' as you call them by state and local governments. The problem isn't that we aren't willing to redistribute money, the problem is that the politicians do a crap job of it, and do it in ways that often seem specifically designed to keep the poor people poor. [1] https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic.png https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic....
    • sundvor 10y ago
      Wow, this was a very useful breakdown. I certainly didn't realise the magnitude of the social spending. Thanks.
• ivanstojic 10y ago
  I guess I'm never visiting Oklahoma.
• wwweston 10y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture needs at least these reforms: 1) Police departments cannot keep anything they seize (or proceeds from its sale/liquidation). Incentives matter. If the funds need to go somewhere, they should be assigned by lottery so they're not a solution to anyone's problems. Or, perhaps have them go to the public defender's office, which is going to need them because... 2) There absolutely has to be due process here. "Civil" is a loophole-technicality if the reason for the seizure is a suspicion that the asset was involved in a crime. PDs should be provided for those who don't have their own counsel, and burden of proof should be on the state. (I know, sending the funds to the PDs office could create a conflict of interest. A straightforward arrangement wouldn't work; there'd have to be a likely state-level layer of indirection and some stipulations incentivizing the hiring of more staff rather than inflating existing staff salaries much beyond the current exorbitant premiums PDs command. :/ )
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• moosetafa 10y ago
  Yet one more reason to stay away from a shithole like Oklahoma. All that jesus worshiping has completely fried their brains.
• adrenalinelol 10y ago
  So they can drain your bank account... Then you'll need to hire a lawyer (after you've lost all your money) to prove you're innocent? Does ERAD give back the 7% fee? This has turned policemen into highwaymen.
• mrhargro 10y ago
  puke
• Havoc 10y ago
  >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money aka Guilty until proven innocent.
• Scoundreller 10y ago
  > We would be happy to introduce you to some of our clients. Please call us at 571-207-ERAD (3723) Call now!
• x1798DE 10y ago
  I think this is the first time I've thought it would be useful to have a device like the ill-fated Coin. Not that I keep money on prepaid cards, but if I did, it would be nice to back up my cards at home so that if stopped by the police I could pre-emptively delete the memory of the meta-card.
• moribondus 10y ago
  The police will keep encroaching until they meet some kind of resistance, which will not easily materialize because people here would be the first ones to utterly condemn respect-instilling reprisals. If everybody else around you accepts to get arbitrarily molested in the butt, you either accept it too, or else you move out. I have personally chosen to move out. Unfortunately, you can see the United Nations, USAID, international NGOs and similar organizations coming over here to convince the locals to accept similar abuse from their own government, by advocating "the rule of law". Of course, there are also the Christian organizations advocating to the locals to offer their other cheek to such thefting police. Since I cannot keep "moving away", at some point I will have no other option than to finally make a stand. The Art of War says that the secret of success consists in never letting the enemy choose the time and the place. You must always choose the time and the place by yourself. Therefore, it suggests that it is us who must schedule forceful attacks against the police. Seriously, I am all for it.
  • millzlane 10y ago
    I think part of the problem is that most of the people come to accept it as normal.
  • jeffdavis 10y ago
    The chance of a random fight against police accomplishing anything good is 0%. The chance it makes things worse is 100%. And organizing violence is not particularly easy. For something like civil forfeiture, it would be much easier to just follow the democratic process. So collect signatures, call representatives, state legislators, and stage protests at city halls. A lot less painful for all parties, and a greater chance of success.
  • chiaro 10y ago
    Why not go to any Western country with a functional police force? e.g. the UK, Australia, Sweden
• andyjdavis 10y ago
  >We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent Serious question, where does the money go and how is it spent? Who is it spent by? We do have a process for the confiscation of proceeds of crime here in Australia. I believe the money goes into a big pot controlled by a federal government department (https://www.afsa.gov.au/ https://www.afsa.gov.au/ ie not the police) to be spent on community projects. I am sure that there is plenty of scope for waste etc but if nothing else the system would seem to do a good job of removing any financial incentives for the police to seize stuff.
• elliottcarlson 10y ago
  Does anyone know if pre-paid cards will be required to go chip-in-card due to the EMV liability shift?
• dmitrygr 10y ago
  Repeat after me: "No, officer, you may not see my wallet. I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or my property. I furthermore, refuse to have any further conversation with you. May I go now, or am I under arrest?" Works every time for me.
• trbvm2 10y ago
  Booster for crypto-currency
• GigabyteCoin 10y ago
  >"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business." So basically... guilty until proven innocent?
• a3n 10y ago
  Why should I have to prove anything about myself to the government if I'm not suspected of a crime? Merely having some of what everyone else has - money, drugs, etc - doesn't itself make me suspect. It just makes me a target.
• gohrt 10y ago
  The article headline is an obscene lie. "OHP Uses New Device To Seize Money Used During The Commission Of A Crime" The article is a balanced analysis that speaks truth to power, but the headline is statist propaganda.
• daveheq 10y ago
  So you're guilty until proven innocent, police are spending the money, and 7.7% is going to the manufacturer; sounds like a racket!
• NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  This is pretty horrible. How can this happen.... Taking advantage of poor, the weak, it is just the lowest.
• tslug 10y ago
  Woo. I wonder if this news could spark a wee run on the banks?