10 ms·

Civil forfeiture is wrong but the story described here is bizarre. The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? It may not be a crime but it is really stupid

Civil forfeiture is wrong but the story described here is bizarre. The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? It may not be a crime but it is really stupid. What if he was in a wreck? Something does not add up here. Free checking and savings accounts exist and they are FDIC insured. There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.

cwwc 5y ago
this does seem odd, i agree.
aqme28 5y ago
How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.
- casion 5y ago
  It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy. If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.
      - aqme28 5y ago
        > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I was responding to this comment: > Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
        morpheos137 5y ago
        I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days. What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one." The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        The issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        No, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The parent said civil forfeiture was wrong—he seems to agree with you, but he’s making a different point that keeping your life’s savings in your car is a bad idea for many other reasons besides civil forfeiture.
  - aqme28 5y ago
    > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. To me that implies that this is less abusive than other cases. I don't agree.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      That’s fine, but that’s a different argument than your comment: > How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime. You both transparently agree that it is abusive regardless and that doing something stupid is not a crime.
geofft 5y ago
I would imagine that a vet has plenty of reasons not to trust the government.
- chenmike 5y ago
  Agreed but then the bizarre part was consenting to a search of his vehicle.
  - polotics 5y ago
    I would not necessarily be aware of any right to not consent to a search.
    - shadowprofile76 5y ago
      The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
      - geofft 5y ago
        Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count. The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
superbatfish 5y ago
Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel. The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them. I can’t think of a better example than this case. [1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-too-many-americans-do-it.html https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...
- salawat 5y ago
  >Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution. Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business. This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.
5555624 5y ago
According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
tyingq 5y ago
>The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances. Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.
CPLX 5y ago
I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.
josefx 5y ago
> and they are FDIC insured. So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.

cwwc 5y ago

this does seem odd, i agree.

aqme28 5y ago

How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.

casion 5y ago
It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid. None of these things are mutually exclusive.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy. If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.
    - aqme28 5y ago
      > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I was responding to this comment: > Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
      - morpheos137 5y ago
        I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days. What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one." The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        The issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      No, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.
throwaway894345 5y ago
The parent said civil forfeiture was wrong—he seems to agree with you, but he’s making a different point that keeping your life’s savings in your car is a bad idea for many other reasons besides civil forfeiture.
- aqme28 5y ago
  > There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one. To me that implies that this is less abusive than other cases. I don't agree.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    That’s fine, but that’s a different argument than your comment: > How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime. You both transparently agree that it is abusive regardless and that doing something stupid is not a crime.

geofft 5y ago

I would imagine that a vet has plenty of reasons not to trust the government.

chenmike 5y ago
Agreed but then the bizarre part was consenting to a search of his vehicle.
- polotics 5y ago
  I would not necessarily be aware of any right to not consent to a search.
  - shadowprofile76 5y ago
    The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
    - geofft 5y ago
      Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count. The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)

superbatfish 5y ago

Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel. The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them. I can’t think of a better example than this case. [1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-too-many-americans-do-it.html https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...

salawat 5y ago
>Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1] Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution. Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business. This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.

5555624 5y ago

According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...

tyingq 5y ago

>The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances. Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.

CPLX 5y ago

I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.

josefx 5y ago

> and they are FDIC insured. So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.