7 ms·

What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff. In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically c

by RIMR 8y ago

What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff. In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime. And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department, so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they can literally commit highway robbery... It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash, only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket your cash for his own illicit purposes. This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.

slowburning 8y ago
In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)
- VectorLock 8y ago
  Which states?
  - arwineap 8y ago
    OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.
    - smrtinsert 8y ago
      Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.
      - djrogers 8y ago
        I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.
        lostcolony 8y ago
        And you were pulled over, and it was discovered? I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.
        topmonk 8y ago
        You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.
        uxp 8y ago
        A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/
  - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
    * http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartments_does_your_car_have_a_hidden_compartment_stay_away_from.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartme... * https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
  - uxp 8y ago
    Ohio, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon. http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-... http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-compartment-in-motor-vehicle-can-provide-probable-cause-for-search- http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-... https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-investigating-and-prosecuting-hidden-compartment-cases https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-inves...
- downandout 8y ago
  Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
  - bnolsen 8y ago
    as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...
  - avar 8y ago
    From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
    - sbarre 8y ago
      By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..
      - pc86 8y ago
        A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.
      - avar 8y ago
        That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime. The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys. This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava wearing gentleman exiting a bank, claiming that you had no idea you were helping with a robbery. Perhaps they're just really ugly businessmen in a hurry? Would that mean nobody could drive a Taxi anymore? Of course not.
fredgrott 8y ago
update, its now less than $5,000 and greater than $2,999...ever wonder why the debit/cc cards for poor can only have cash loaded on the card less than $2,999?
scoggs 8y ago
I hope, and if this applies to you maybe this will be a wake up call, nobody reading this walks around with lump sums of cash like this without a receipt from the ATM or bank teller. I hope not.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  And how would that help? Playing policeman’s advocate, maybe you left half of what you just withdrew at home? How would you prove you were carrying the whole amount?

by RIMR 8y ago

slowburning 8y ago

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

VectorLock 8y ago
Which states?
- arwineap 8y ago
  OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.
  - smrtinsert 8y ago
    Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.
    - djrogers 8y ago
      I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.
      - lostcolony 8y ago
        And you were pulled over, and it was discovered? I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.
        topmonk 8y ago
        You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.
        uxp 8y ago
        A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/
- x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
  * http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartments_does_your_car_have_a_hidden_compartment_stay_away_from.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartme... * https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
- uxp 8y ago
  Ohio, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon. http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-... http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-compartment-in-motor-vehicle-can-provide-probable-cause-for-search- http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-... https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-investigating-and-prosecuting-hidden-compartment-cases https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-inves...
downandout 8y ago
Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
- bnolsen 8y ago
  as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...
- avar 8y ago
  From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
  - sbarre 8y ago
    By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..
    - pc86 8y ago
      A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.
    - avar 8y ago
      That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime. The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys. This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava wearing gentleman exiting a bank, claiming that you had no idea you were helping with a robbery. Perhaps they're just really ugly businessmen in a hurry? Would that mean nobody could drive a Taxi anymore? Of course not.

fredgrott 8y ago

update, its now less than $5,000 and greater than $2,999...ever wonder why the debit/cc cards for poor can only have cash loaded on the card less than $2,999?

scoggs 8y ago

I hope, and if this applies to you maybe this will be a wake up call, nobody reading this walks around with lump sums of cash like this without a receipt from the ATM or bank teller. I hope not.

URSpider94 8y ago
And how would that help? Playing policeman’s advocate, maybe you left half of what you just withdrew at home? How would you prove you were carrying the whole amount?