15 ms·
A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it
- nighthawk1 8y agoNeed to declare that, buddy. Anything over $10k. It’s super easy for them to detect that much currency in your carryon.
- spaceheeder 8y agoAddressed in the article. You're supposed to declare to customs when you leave the country. He would have been leaving from Newark after a four-hour layover. Also in the article: CBP had 90 days to respond after Kazazi decided to take the matter to federal court, but over a month after their deadline passed are still holding the money, and are refusing to comment.
- staticautomatic 8y agoNeed to read the article, buddy.
- trakout 8y agobuddy.
- branchan 8y agoDid you read the article? Hottot said Kazazi was well aware of those requirements and planned to file his disclosure form during his four-hour layover in Newark. The form instructs travelers to file the paperwork “at the time of departure from the United States with the Customs officer in charge at any Customs port of entry or departure.”
- gowld 8y agoThe money was seized at departure of the domestic leg of this trip, before he had an opportunity to report it at the port of departure for his international leg. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/fin105_cmir.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/fin105_cmi...
- __jal 8y ago(1) He wasn't trying to hide it. (2) It was a domestic flight; he says he was going to declare it when boarding the international flight. This was all in the article. At this rate the various LEAs are going to make muggers, bankers and other professional thieves jealous.
- brianbreslin 8y agoIs there anywhere for someone to learn about the process that exists to RECOVER civil asset forfeiture funds?
- tracker1 8y agoYou have to sue the government body that took your funds. Get a good lawyer and pray, basically.
- user982 8y agoThe government body will refuse to return the money voluntarily if you sue.[0] [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180508/10330739804/cbp-sued-seizing-41000-airline-passenger-then-refusing-to-give-it-back-unless-she-promised-not-to-sue.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180508/10330739804/cbp-s...
- martin1975 8y agoI come from a country that borders Albania... Albania has a 60% muslim population, and given our current administration and mood toward islam, it is highly doubtful they were after his money but rather after something that went off on their 'threat to national security' radar. Could be a mistaken identity too, it's not unheard of .. many names on those watch lists sound similar or are not the same person at all. I'm betting all moneys will be returned to him when they conclude whatever investigation they need to conclude. This is just a sensationalist headline that doesn't do any service to anyone.... Edit: Funny, people downvote as if the government has no case - they clearly sent him a notice that “Enforcement activity indicates that the currency was involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation.” and “pursuant to an administrative search of Mr. Kazazi and his bags, TSA agents discovered artfully concealed U.S. currency. Mr. Kazazi provided inconsistent statements regarding the currency, had no verifiable source of income and possessed evidence of structuring activity,” that is, making cash withdrawals of less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements." Most cash has traces of drugs on it... and serial #'s on notes are sometimes marked when drug stings are conducted. All I'm saying is, there's two sides to the story - not just the WaPo one. I guess it's hard to depict that on HN... WaPo isn't the source of truth on this - just an opinion. Like mine. Or anyone else here.
- tracker1 8y agoCivil asset forfeiture does not return anything without a fight... it's a guilty until proven innocent system. It's been a big problem with anyone carrying even a few hundred dollars in a LOT of places in the US. It needs a Supreme Court smackdown is what it needs.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rootsudo 8y agoNo, most forfeiture is not returned to the victim. Because it's not innocent until declared guilty, it's guilty until declared innocent. Forfeiture does not follow human vs USA. It's 56,000 $ VS USA. At Airports you waive your right to search protection.
- tracker1 8y agoI absolutely hate even the idea of "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It's even more of a bullshit legal construct than a non-living entity having first amendment rights. It's clearly a 4th Amendment violation and deserves to be challenged. I'd be okay with freezing assets for up to say 3 months while formal charges are filed, but just taking them forever is fucking bullshit.
- seibelj 8y agoIt amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destroy any life, and seize all assets and livelihood if they desire to, even in America. But at least in America it is possible to sue the government and maybe rectify the situation, but you have to be wealthy or get a powerful ally like the Washington Post on your side. If it upsets you that the US government is able to hurt an immigrant like is discussed in this article, then you should take a very skeptical view of government actions and also people who advocate giving the government more power. After all, many people who loved Obama's expansion of executive authority now recoil as the enemy party's control of the government reverses his non-congressional approved decisions. The more power you give to the government, the less power the citizenry has.
- tracker1 8y agoNot just immigrants... for years, various jurisdictions in the US would shakedown people passing through. If you had more than a couple hundred in cash, kiss it goodbye. There's been a little tightening of its' use in the past 2-3 years, but it needs to go away.
- 3pt14159 8y agoNot last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless. Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't. If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada, and many other places are well run and have a great deal of governmental involvement. America is hobbled by its own broken political system that nobody would replicate if they were starting from scratch today. It's essentially the PHP of government systems. Dominant, but broken.
- 8y ago
- Sohcahtoa82 8y agoHere's something that gets me... A lot of Second Amendment advocates say we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Well...here's your tyranny. Now where's that armed uprising?
- refurb 8y agoI don't know of any 2nd amendment advocate who suggests bearing arms against the government as an ideal first option. If you want to see it in action in another scenario, go look up The Bundy Ranch Standoff.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
- JackCh 8y agoThere is a common saying: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order." Emphasis on Please use in that order. I can't believe this needs to be emphasized, but killing people should be a last resort. I'm glad these "2nd Amendment advocates" aren't as trigger happy as you seem to suggest they be. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that shooting people before nonviolent options are exhausted is depraved.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y agoWell said. I guess the problem is that not enough people know that civil forfeiture is a thing yet. I'm just blown away that such a thing could ever be written into law. I think it's a pretty clear-as-day violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
- userbinator 8y agoI guess the problem is that not enough people know that civil forfeiture is a thing yet. ...or that not enough people have experienced it yet, and probably never will. There's a lot of "it won't happen to me" thinking around this, and to be honest, how many people do take large amounts of cash with them while traveling? The fact that this item is newsworthy is enough to show that it happens rarely. I'm almost willing to bet that if the number of people affected goes high enough, there will be armed revolts; but the government is smart enough to not do that, instead preferring to strip liberties in tiny bits at a time.
- vuln 8y agoAnecdotal but I have walked through security and boarded US flights with much much larger amounts of cash without a single issue, no declaration, no paperwork. Not a single person bat an eye. I wonder if there is more to this story. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I'm sure the USG will make a mockery of itself.
- arcticbull 8y agoIt sounds like (1) they didn't notice you did that and (2) you didn't follow proper procedure because as noted in the article you're required to declare bringing in or taking out amounts in excess of $10,000. I've never gotten a jaywalking ticket, but that doesn't meant it never happens.
- api 8y agoHow is asset forfeiture not precisely the system of police bribery and police corruption that we routinely criticize "third world" countries for having?
- eth1 8y agotry that with bitcoin.
- cf498 8y agoI thought civil asset forfeiture was outlawed around 2014/2015. Looking closer it seems that was only in a few states. I found this map from 2015 https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/civil_forfeiture_map.0.png https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/c... Has much changed since then?
- jryan49 8y agoedit: Any changes to these laws would not apply due to the border search exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception The supreme court basically decided you have no rights at the border.
- jpindar 8y agoWithin 100 miles of the border, that is. Which includes most of the more populated areas of the US.
- warent 8y agoA huge problem here is that the government has zero skin in the game. Random people working for some three letter agency are able to plunge you into a bureaucratic labyrinth at the flick of a wrist, and even violate their own guidelines with an extremely low probability of accountability or repercussion. For example: > Under federal forfeiture law, the government was required to initiate a forfeiture case within 90 days after the Kazazis responded to the seizure notice. If it failed to initiate a forfeiture case within that window, it would be required to promptly return the money to the claimants. > That deadline passed over a month ago, on April 17. CBP has not filed a forfeiture complaint; nor has it returned the money. This kind of behavior should be severely penalized. The Kazazis should be awarded a minimum of 10x the market value of the asset, or about $570,000, and NOT to be paid out of some magic bottomless government account funded by tax dollars, but directly from whomever the head of the offending department is. Then the horrible life experiences they're afflicting on innocent individuals might actually be bumped up from "P4 - Low priority" to "P0 - Get this shit fixed now"
- mnm1 8y agoYou start holing these cops personally accountable for this or any of the massive amounts of other disgusting actions they commit on a daily basis and I guarantee this fixes itself overnight. Cop murders someone, electric chair. Cops steals money, they pay back their entire life savings. It's about time we hold public servants to a higher set of standards rather than a lower one. If only there were such incentives, they'd be guaranteed to work. But there are no consequences to police even for murder, let alone theft.
- warent 8y agoThis isn't what I intended to communicate at all. Lower level personnel behaving badly is just a symptom of the real problem, and punishing them would be an easy scapegoat for higher up authority. Just like with a toxic CEO in a company, firing some employees isn't a long term solution to fixing the culture. The leaders, the heads of the departments, is where the accountability should be.
- 8y ago
- lewis500 8y agoOnly as I get older do I realize how incredibly bad elements of law enforcement in the US can be, and legally so. Few cops and agents are bad, but it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements. Civil asset forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular, but when states try to reform it the law enforcement groups rally around it mightily. Essentially they want the right to steal money because they need money; nobody really makes a sincere argument the situation is any different than that. In Alabama they recently tried to reform it. In an op ed by the leaders of district attorneys and sheriffs, the authors wrote “What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?” I dunno: it seems like if they are professional cops they should just solve crimes and such that seem important; by “investing manpower” they are not investing like a firm does but pulling resources from elsewhere to spend trying to take things from oblivious people. Also in alabama, sheriffs are allowed to take extra money from the food programs at the county jail, and they buy themselves vacation homes this way. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-sheriff-legally-pocketed-750k-from-inmate-food-funds-bought-beach-house/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-sheriff-legally-pockete...
- cf498 8y agoAs an outside perspective, how do you quantify, that only "Few cops and agents are bad". If your job contains robbing people, I would rationally word it the other way around. Hopefully there are quite a few cops who dont follow the rules and subvert the system of organized theft. But if you take policies like civil forfeiture or for example police union cards for family members this sounds like organized crime to quite a few people not living in the US.
- maxxxxx 8y ago"Hopefully there are quite a few cops who dont follow the rules and subvert the system of organized theft" There is no rule that says they have to do asset forfeiture. It's a choice. One of the biggest problems in the US is that laws are not very clear and clarification is left up to the courts.
- 8y ago
- tluyben2 8y agoWhat is the rationale behind civil forfeiture? Besides a convenient way to get more funds into the state pocket if you don’t like someone’s face? I first saw it in The Shield (still one of my favorite shows) and remember thinking that it looks more like some army controlled region in Africa or something than a civilized country. But yeah, so does privatising prisons.
- gowld 8y agoThe rationale, such as it is, is that proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is too hard, and the Constitution does not apply to civil forfeiture (civil=$$$, criminal=imprisonment). The 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) is quietly ignored.
- stordoff 8y agoIs the 4th Amendment ignored, or is the threshold for search (assuming "reasonable suspicion" or something similar) just lower than for (criminal) seizure?
- chiph 8y agoIt's a legacy of the "War on Drugs". The argument was that drug dealers use money mules to move their cash, and this law would allow law enforcement to take that money, thus harming the drug trade. Like many well-meaning laws that were hastily passed, they never thought it would be used against retirees and people buying cars with cash.
- hapnin 8y agoThe system is working as designed: shield state actors from liability while increasing police powers. A few lose their jobs or get fined, but fewer go to jail or have to account for their excesses. I really question the motives of anyone who wants to be a cop in this environment.
- jbob2000 8y agoWhy would you risk carrying around that kind of money? What’s wrong with doing a wire transfer? Or just writing yourself a cheque? Failing to see an honest use case for moving that much cash by hand.
- DoctorBit 8y agoRTFA
- loeg 8y agoCovered in like, the first few 'grafs of the article. Please don't comment without at least skimming the article.
- cesarb 8y ago> Why would you risk carrying around that kind of money? What’s wrong with doing a wire transfer? Mistrust of banking institutions. Several countries have, at some point in history, frozen and/or confiscated the money deposited in bank accounts (my country, for instance, had one of these in the 90s). > Or just writing yourself a cheque? As mentioned on many other discussions here on HN, several countries don't use checks anymore. And even when that's not the case, it's probable that they won't accept checks from another country.
- the_dave_santos 8y agoRead the news, it's explained there fully. According to them in Albania; wiring has high fee, bad rate, and possibility to be intercepted due to corrupt system.
- megous 8y agoWell I totaly understand why he would do this. I once made an international wire transfer, because there was no other option, and the banks stripped me of 7% of the funds on fees, and completely retarded currency exhange rate. For this guy, that would be a year of savings, which is not insignificant. Also banks will not commit to any specific total fee amount. If you read their terms and conditions, they say that money could go via unspecified number of intermediaries, where any one of them can take a part of the money up to 5% each or some such.
- oldandtired 8y agoThis is decades old old, centuries old, millenia old problem. If one's government and by extension all those organisations which are under its umbrella are not held to the highest standards by "we the people", the citizens, then it will rapidly degrade to the lowest standards. It can only be held to the highest standards by the active, ongoing participation of the citizens. There is no nation on this beautiful planet that is held to the highest standards because there is no agreement what the highest standards are. As citizens, we are only interested in our specific interests and cares and whoopee-do for anyone else. As citizens, we don't care what happens elsewhere. That is someone else's problem. It doesn't matter what kid of politics you adhere to, what philosophies or religions, most (the vast, vast majority) are only interested in what they get out of things. If the consequences of some policy, legislation, etc. will come and bite them, they don't care as long as it hasn't happened right now. So with the lowest standards, we have corrupt or useless politicians, law enforcement, national security, commercial enterprises, government enterprises, medical treatment, education, etc. The problems continue to grow and the citizens continue to fight over the decreasing scraps left over for them. Every system on this planet is failing rapidly and will continue to go downhill. Until people are willing to take responsibility for their choices and accept responsibility for their choices, they will be unable to do anything that is effective in making changes for the better. If you are not willing to hold yourself to a higher standard, then you cannot expect those who have responsibilities in government, business, social areas to have a higher standard. If you are part of any organisation that has "bad apples" and you do nothing, then you are one of those "bad apples". There are no excuses, no extenuating circumstances, as long as any "bad apples" are not dealt with, the entirety of the organisation is corrupt. So on that note, it should not be at all surprising when corrupt activities are undertaken by any government organisation and law enforcement such as the legal theft of any goods and chattels of any citizen or non-citizen. The citizens have been complicit and now the citizens have to live with that corruption and the consequences for themselves. If we aren't doing something active to improve things then we are in full agreement with what does happen to others and then to ourselves.
- mnm1 8y agoSo the police steal as much as everyone else combined, but it's still only a few bad apples? Every last beat cop on up (especially if they are part of a union) is a bad, rotten apple. Every single one of these cops are propping up ridiculous systems of mass theft and murder orchestrated by their colleagues and their counterparts in prosecutors' offices. These people have no concept of justice or fairness or serving or protecting. I truly think the US would be better off without official police that's how detrimental they are to our society. They are one of the few groups that I can truly say keep our society from being civilized.
- gowld 8y ago> the police steal as much as everyone else combined No, that's a "fake news" myth. 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-... > If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, > The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014.
- chmod775 8y agoBut only around 20% of property stolen gets recovered (value). So the police actually take more than they recover, operating at a net negative. And that isn't counting the wages of people working there yet... I realize this comparison isn't fair at all - the problem appears to be that it comes to mind at all.
- MisterTea 8y agoGod I love this country. Where else do the criminals compete with the police and the terrorists compete with our armed mentally ill mass murderers?
- jsjohnst 8y ago> Erald Kazazi said the ordeal has affected his father's health and turned their lives upside down. But, he said, his father's high opinion of the United States has not changed. > “He's not going to let the actions of some employees that made a mistake in their duties change his opinion of the country,” he said. I wish people wouldn’t put the USA on high pedestals and realize this (among other things) are very serious issues that will ultimately be our downfall if not addressed. Do people think the countries they fled from got bad overnight? No, it’s a pattern of ambivalence to corruption that led to the ultimately shitty state they are in now and we will be there faster than we think.
- chmod775 8y agoHis father was being diplomatic. It's easier to admit you messed up once than admitting you have a systemic problem.
- trumped 8y agoThe agents will get a nice bonus this week... probably as good as last week and next week.
- neurotech1 8y agoJohn Oliver on civil asset forfeiture, satirical but shockingly real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
- partycoder 8y agoCivil forfeiture is technically a legal action against your property, not you. Since your property will not and cannot legally defend itself, it loses by default.
- drtillberg 8y agoNext the government will indict the left hand of a thief, or the foot of a common brawler. Those are just body parts with no constitutional rights, so forget about habeas corpus and all that jazz. It'll be much better. Cops can just focus on arresting fists and feet and not worry about explaining themselves to juries.
- DenisM 8y agoJustice Thomas indicated [1] his severe disapproval of civil forfeiture and interest in invalidating it should a good case present itself, and so it seems that such case just turned up. I'm waiting for the supreme court case with eager anticipation. Last time there was a potentially suitable case the victim's lawyer made a mistake of not raising the constitutional grounds (4th amendment) during the initial trial, and this formality made it impossible to mount a good appeal. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/the_supreme_court_finally_found_an_issue_that_unites_them.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- dsabanin 8y agoI hate civil forfeiture as much as the next guy, but the story of a guy from Albania carrying all his family's "life savings", including his adult son's savings (why would he give his father his life savings?), in amount of ~60k USD back to Albania because "bank wire was too risky" sounds like a cover up lie. What's more believable is that bank wire was too risky because you need to declare where the money is coming from when you send them and when you receive them, and also probably pay taxes. It just looks like a simple money laundering operation.
- throwaway062018 8y ago...unpopular opinion time... so, is anyone taking a long hard look and asking themselves, first individually and then collectively - "this situation , this and all the stuff going on in our world today, is this or is this not totally out of control?" would be great to be able to do this without looking to some other country and saying "but that happens over there and that is way worse than this" some of this stuff should be absolute (see intent of constitutions and similar )
- eggy 8y agoUsually I like to see balance come about in due time like a pendulum slowly swinging from one side to the other, but it's stories like these that would have me understand action and revolt against the body perpetrating such morally wrong, yet supposedly legal actions. Time to call for a Robin Hood. He did not steal from the rich and give to the poor as most people think, but rather took back property and money seized by the corrupt brother of the good king who was absent and at war a distance away. Here the government allows for seizure without accountability, but the laws or whatever it is that allows this is legal?
- exabrial 8y agoHas civil asset forfiture been to the Supreme Court? It's blatantly unconstitutional, and given the current panel I'd say it has a great chance of being killed. I do have to say, it's a well known fact trying to make it across any border with a sum of cash is a risky business. I would hope America would be an exception to that fact due to "Due Process", but even I wouldn't place a bet on that. It says very clearly on the us travel website carrying more than $10k of cash is going to get you in trouble though. Transferring money internationally is a huge pita. I just came back from China. Good luck every trying to fund a wechat or alipay account as a Westerner.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoTransferring money from China is easy via a wire. Converting RMB tO USD, on the other hand is a PITA and you won’t succeed if you don’t have the right documentation in triplicate. You can use wechat to pay for things as a foreigner if you have a resident permit, or so I here. Carrying more than $10k of cash is actually ok as long as you report it.
- exabrial 8y ago> xferring is easy via wire No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national. > If you have a resident permit The only requirement is a Chinese phone number which requires hours in line, a visa, facial recognition scan, and passport, and the same requirements for the bank account. Once you have a Chinese bank account, you can hook it up to wechat. The only ways to fund it are via cash however. This was not a communication issue, I had a native speaker with me at Bank of China and China mobile.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago> No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national. I’ve wired money from my Chinese account to my overseas account plenty of times. I’m most definitely not a Chinese National. I’ve also had money wired to my Chinese account before. Still, if you don’t want to wait in line, don’t go to BOC (or ICBC). I still have a Chinese phone number also. Passport + resident permit was good enough in my case for both account and phone number. But it could have changed since I got those a few years ago. BOC and China mobile see the worst companies to deal with. CMB (China merchant bank) isn’t an SOE so their customer service is better. Also, Unicom is better than China Mobile for foreigners.
- skookumchuck 8y agoWhy do no candidates, either Dem or GOP, work to end this? Isn't the government blatantly stealing from people something both sides can get together to end?
- vageli 8y agoBecause then it might be construed as an attack on police funding. Politicians seek support of police unions when they're running campaigns.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y agoThis should get cert.
- mankash666 8y agoHow many 64 year olds put their life savings in carry on bags? I'm not saying the CBP is innocent, but $60K in cash in a carry on is suspicious
- w0de0 8y agoMany, many people. Cash is the surest portable form of value, and banking can be especially complicated and expensive when international borders are involved.
- siruncledrew 8y agoWas it right or fair the money was taken? Likely not. But, practically speaking, was it a good idea to blatantly take that much cash in a bag across a border? That's highly questionable. I don't care who it is, government agent or not, I would just not risk it. At the end of the day, that "civil servant" is just another person - and they are liable to act in their own self-interest just like some other random individual. With such high stakes as putting your life savings on the line, it would make sense to be skeptical of anyone you make eye contact with. It's just my opinion, but I would sooner take my chances trying to smuggle the money across the border than just plainly walk through security with a bag full of cash. Unless there are specific legal/authoritative documents proving the legality of the money that's being taken across and a lawyer is traveling with me. As soon as the government seizes the money, it's an uphill battle from there.
- chiph 8y agoNot to people who have seen banks fail. Like the elderly who watched their parent's life-savings disappear during the 1930's market crash (the FDIC insurance law was enacted afterwards). Or people who used to live in totalitarian states and cash was the best way to have savings.
- t0mbstone 8y agoSuspicious, sure. But people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. You shouldn't be able to just take someone's stuff because you are "suspicious" that they got it illegally. You should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they got it illegally first.
- salawat 8y agoThis is one of the most horrifying stories I've read in a long time. I have a great deal of trouble even understanding what has gone so catastrophically wrong to even have this practice be a thing. Due process MUST be honored. No excuses are acceptable that "convictions are to hard, we NEED this". Law enforcement and policing with this kind of discretion, ceases to be policing, protection of, or service to society. I will back the men and women who truly try to execute their duty with due respect and honor to those they are protecting, but institutional mechanisms like this only undermine and weaken the trust the public can have in the government. I'll come out and say it. I'll accept a drug dealer on every corner before I'll accept the legality and morality of confiscation of assets without due process or with shortcutted due process. Our country survived just fine before the explosion in law enforcement's capability to waltz over civil rights, and it can survive without it now. If you can't get the job done with typical investigative techniques that don't include stomping on or cleverly redefining the scope of the 4th Amendment, then maybe, just maybe you're doing it wrong. Depriving a citizen of life, liberty, and the fruits of their pursuit of happiness is SUPPOSED to be a long, ardorous task. Vigilia pretium libertatis est.
- jamaicahest 8y agoHere's a version without the paywall http://archive.is/osFHm http://archive.is/osFHm
- stefek99 8y agoYou fill the form, you declare the cash. It says in Terms & Conditions "if you don't register BLAH BLAH BLAH" Choose a country that promotes freedom - Liberland, Blue Frontiers anyone?