3 ms·

> it began with an extra-legal demand That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no i

by q1w2 5y ago

> it began with an extra-legal demand That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no investigation" This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing the money personally. This likely still would have been considered a seizure under asset forfeiture. I agree that it should be entirely legal to carry around hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it looks very suspicious for someone who's been previously convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around hundreds of thousands in small bills. Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in court prove the money was not gained through illegal means. The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial). It's important to remember that every state is different - as is the Fed gov't. In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost every state.

hapless 5y ago
"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final disposition of the stolen money is secondary.
- q1w2 5y ago
  > "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not. If the officer pocketed it, then it's illegal. If the gov't did it using the law of asset forfeiture, then it's literally LEGAL. You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral".
  - lolwut09883 5y ago
    Yeah, fuck that guy for expecting the laws to line up with not stealing peoples shit with a badge. Doesn’t he know what isn’t illegal is just fine for America and the people who chose to be there?
  - thatcat 5y ago
    >to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation >then it's literally LEGAL Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.
    - q1w2 5y ago
      > it was used as a form of intimidation Correct - which is a common tactic in law enforcement. That is why people are advised to shut up until they speak to their lawyer. > Who cares if it's legal or not? The people above describing it incorrectly as illegal. > a blemish on the legal system No. It would be a blemish on the legislators who wrote the law, and those who voted for them. The legal system enforces laws - it is not meant to judge ethics.
  - hapless 5y ago
    You are seriously misreading the story at hand. https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-billions-in-cash-from-air-travelers-without-ever-filing-a-criminal-charge/ https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-... The threatened "investigation" in was the civil asset forfeiture procedure. They were asking him to voluntarily surrender the money, or else they would initiate civil asset forfeiture. In other words, law enforcement officers offered the victim a choice between plans A and B. Plan A was the extra-legal course: give us your money, and we'll forget we ever had this discussion. This was the officer's preferred outcome. Free money, minimum paperwork. Plan B was what actually happened: the civil asset forfeiture process. The victim refused to sign the papers, so everything goes to court, and then the government has to come up with something, at least a notional reason, to take the money. However you read the laws around civil asset forfeiture, I am pretty sure that "plan A" was not an intended part of the picture.
8note 5y ago
Uncontested can mean two different things, either the action was right, or even if it's wrong, you won't get your stuff back. Also, you can't skip work to go contest it because you won't be able to pay your bills. I'd guess that one covers most cases and that police target people who can't afford to take time off to go to court
- q1w2 5y ago
  You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.
  - lolwut09883 5y ago
    When someone steals your cash and makes you go to court to beg for it back, I think that might make a significant difference in your rich/poor status, huh? Perhaps you can finish that thought with some compassion, and agree that this is a stupid system?
  - lupire 5y ago
    Poor people can save up to buy an inexpensive car.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in this manner is irresistible bait for cops -- folks are rightly intimidated, because cops can generally make your life hell through perfectly legal procedures. And, actually, poor people frequently don't trust banks and will keep their life savings in cash. That can easily be tens of thousands of dollars, it only takes putting away $500 a year for 20 years. Do you think they're gonna have adequate records to prove that all of that was legal income?
foerbert 5y ago
One other aspect is that it's often not even fiscally reasonable to attempt to get the cash back. The costs of an attorney to take the case often outweigh the value of the cash seized. This means many times the only options are to give up on the cash, or try to do it yourself. Doing it yourself means even more time investment, and a lower expected return. There is no way this isn't a significant factor in how many people leave the seizure uncontested. I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything uncontested is drug money.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial). Is this just pure speculation? You seem to be making this claim with no evidence whatsoever. There are many reasons cases might go uncontested. For example, the individual might not have the means to pursue the case. There are innumerable other possibilities as well.

by q1w2 5y ago

hapless 5y ago

"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final disposition of the stolen money is secondary.

q1w2 5y ago
> "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not. If the officer pocketed it, then it's illegal. If the gov't did it using the law of asset forfeiture, then it's literally LEGAL. You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral".
- lolwut09883 5y ago
  Yeah, fuck that guy for expecting the laws to line up with not stealing peoples shit with a badge. Doesn’t he know what isn’t illegal is just fine for America and the people who chose to be there?
- thatcat 5y ago
  >to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation >then it's literally LEGAL Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    > it was used as a form of intimidation Correct - which is a common tactic in law enforcement. That is why people are advised to shut up until they speak to their lawyer. > Who cares if it's legal or not? The people above describing it incorrectly as illegal. > a blemish on the legal system No. It would be a blemish on the legislators who wrote the law, and those who voted for them. The legal system enforces laws - it is not meant to judge ethics.
- hapless 5y ago
  You are seriously misreading the story at hand. https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-billions-in-cash-from-air-travelers-without-ever-filing-a-criminal-charge/ https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-... The threatened "investigation" in was the civil asset forfeiture procedure. They were asking him to voluntarily surrender the money, or else they would initiate civil asset forfeiture. In other words, law enforcement officers offered the victim a choice between plans A and B. Plan A was the extra-legal course: give us your money, and we'll forget we ever had this discussion. This was the officer's preferred outcome. Free money, minimum paperwork. Plan B was what actually happened: the civil asset forfeiture process. The victim refused to sign the papers, so everything goes to court, and then the government has to come up with something, at least a notional reason, to take the money. However you read the laws around civil asset forfeiture, I am pretty sure that "plan A" was not an intended part of the picture.

8note 5y ago

Uncontested can mean two different things, either the action was right, or even if it's wrong, you won't get your stuff back. Also, you can't skip work to go contest it because you won't be able to pay your bills. I'd guess that one covers most cases and that police target people who can't afford to take time off to go to court

q1w2 5y ago
You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.
- lolwut09883 5y ago
  When someone steals your cash and makes you go to court to beg for it back, I think that might make a significant difference in your rich/poor status, huh? Perhaps you can finish that thought with some compassion, and agree that this is a stupid system?
- lupire 5y ago
  Poor people can save up to buy an inexpensive car.
- klyrs 5y ago
  It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in this manner is irresistible bait for cops -- folks are rightly intimidated, because cops can generally make your life hell through perfectly legal procedures. And, actually, poor people frequently don't trust banks and will keep their life savings in cash. That can easily be tens of thousands of dollars, it only takes putting away $500 a year for 20 years. Do you think they're gonna have adequate records to prove that all of that was legal income?

foerbert 5y ago

One other aspect is that it's often not even fiscally reasonable to attempt to get the cash back. The costs of an attorney to take the case often outweigh the value of the cash seized. This means many times the only options are to give up on the cash, or try to do it yourself. Doing it yourself means even more time investment, and a lower expected return. There is no way this isn't a significant factor in how many people leave the seizure uncontested. I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything uncontested is drug money.

CogitoCogito 5y ago

> The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial). Is this just pure speculation? You seem to be making this claim with no evidence whatsoever. There are many reasons cases might go uncontested. For example, the individual might not have the means to pursue the case. There are innumerable other possibilities as well.