4 ms·

> so if a cop pulls you over you can prove it is documented/part of a ‘legal’ source Which the cop will promptly ignore and take the money anyway.

lazide 5y ago
Which if you have a dashcam, paperwork, and lawyers could put him in jail or get you shot. You do have enough lawyers right?
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Also do you have your dashcam automatically backing up into the cloud as it records? Or at least, paperwork proving you had a dashcam in your car? I really want to believe things are not that bad in the US.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Depends entirely on the agency/area. Some are really good, some are…… really not. And it’s hard to predict what you’ll get unless you really know the area.
- garmaine 5y ago
  No because once your money is charged (not you, your money) it is very difficult to get standing to fight it unless you luck out with the judge or something. And no matter the outcome the cop never sees consequences because of qualified immunity.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Nah, if you can show the source of the money was legit (drawn from a legit bank for instance), you at a minimum have a solid claim for civil damages. Where the civil asset forfeiture stuff really gets people is when they don’t have a paper trail.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  None of this matters. The police are definitely not going to be put in jail for doing their job. And seizing "large amounts" of cash falls squarely into their job description. The department has an army of lawyers who deal with civil asset forfeiture all the time, and they can call in federal assistance if needed. There's a 95% chance the department will keep all of the cash, and in the other 5% they merely keep some of it. Paperwork won't help because the prosecutors will successfully argue that it could be used for future crimes. Civil asset forfeiture makes a mockery of the US legal system, but most people don't follow it enough to see just how bad it really is.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture requires some degree of at least suspicion that things are not above board, AND they need to know it’s there. A receipt for a cash withdrawal sitting on top of the stack of cash that 100% shows every dollar came from a legit bank? And it was in a place you didn’t give them consent to search, and you can show there was no probable cause to search? Someone’s gonna lose their job over that, at least if you have enough lawyers Where civil asset forfeiture comes in hard core is when you can’t show the source of the money.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      It requires no such thing. Police have argued (successfully) many times in many jurisdictions that the mere possession of large amounts of cash is suspicious in and of itself, and being able to show legal sources is pointless because the argument is that it COULD be used for a crime.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Mere possession WITH NO PAPERWORK. This is an important distinction. Show me a case otherwise.

lazide 5y ago

Which if you have a dashcam, paperwork, and lawyers could put him in jail or get you shot. You do have enough lawyers right?

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Also do you have your dashcam automatically backing up into the cloud as it records? Or at least, paperwork proving you had a dashcam in your car? I really want to believe things are not that bad in the US.
- lazide 5y ago
  Depends entirely on the agency/area. Some are really good, some are…… really not. And it’s hard to predict what you’ll get unless you really know the area.
garmaine 5y ago
No because once your money is charged (not you, your money) it is very difficult to get standing to fight it unless you luck out with the judge or something. And no matter the outcome the cop never sees consequences because of qualified immunity.
- lazide 5y ago
  Nah, if you can show the source of the money was legit (drawn from a legit bank for instance), you at a minimum have a solid claim for civil damages. Where the civil asset forfeiture stuff really gets people is when they don’t have a paper trail.
mywittyname 5y ago
None of this matters. The police are definitely not going to be put in jail for doing their job. And seizing "large amounts" of cash falls squarely into their job description. The department has an army of lawyers who deal with civil asset forfeiture all the time, and they can call in federal assistance if needed. There's a 95% chance the department will keep all of the cash, and in the other 5% they merely keep some of it. Paperwork won't help because the prosecutors will successfully argue that it could be used for future crimes. Civil asset forfeiture makes a mockery of the US legal system, but most people don't follow it enough to see just how bad it really is.
- lazide 5y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture requires some degree of at least suspicion that things are not above board, AND they need to know it’s there. A receipt for a cash withdrawal sitting on top of the stack of cash that 100% shows every dollar came from a legit bank? And it was in a place you didn’t give them consent to search, and you can show there was no probable cause to search? Someone’s gonna lose their job over that, at least if you have enough lawyers Where civil asset forfeiture comes in hard core is when you can’t show the source of the money.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    It requires no such thing. Police have argued (successfully) many times in many jurisdictions that the mere possession of large amounts of cash is suspicious in and of itself, and being able to show legal sources is pointless because the argument is that it COULD be used for a crime.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Mere possession WITH NO PAPERWORK. This is an important distinction. Show me a case otherwise.