7 ms·

I think civil asset forfeiture is a farce and should be ended. At the same time, the idea that a 58 year old man would spend his life savings by purchasing a $3

by defen 5y ago

I think civil asset forfeiture is a farce and should be ended. At the same time, the idea that a 58 year old man would spend his life savings by purchasing a $30,000 truck from a stranger who lives a thousand miles away, using physical cash, seems extremely suspect to me. Do people think the events described would be a reasonable basis to obtain a warrant for phone / travel records, to see if he'd been associating with known drug dealers?

asah 5y ago
Perhaps true but it's a _very_ dangerous precedent to allow legal behavior to be treated as "suspicious" and grounds for anything. Want an example? You and I are posting on an internet forum whose name has the word "hacker" in the title !! :-)
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
Saying that the police should use the presence of cash as reasons to search someone's phone and travel records with the backing of the Drug War is a losing proposition. Always seeking to tie in actions to the Drug War is how we got to the instance that's being discussed.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Do people think the events described would be a reasonable basis to obtain a warrant for phone / travel records, to see if he'd been associating with known drug dealers? I'm not sure I'd support this, but I wouldn't be viscerally opposed to it either. Taking the money on the basis of that suspicion alone, however, is criminal.
ceejayoz 5y ago
There are plenty of people who don't trust the banking systems. If you've bounced checks in the past, you may also be blacklisted from them entirely. Quite a few Americans rely on check cashing places because they don't have an account. (edit: 5.4% of Americans don't have a bank. https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html) A person shouldn't be subject to seizure of their savings just because they're a little different than most in the handling of their finances. I might be OK with the warrant you describe, but that's not what this was.
- defen 5y ago
  > A person shouldn't be subject to seizure of their savings just because they're a little different than most in the handling of their finances. I agree, that was the whole point of my comment. > I might be OK with the warrant you describe, but that's not what this was. I know, that's why I presented hypothetical alternative actions law enforcement could have taken, as a thought experiment. At the root of the issue is this: absent explicit evidence of a crime, should possession of arbitrary amounts of cash be considered suspect? Suppose he'd been pulled over with 2 million dollars cash in a truck and said he'd intended to use it to buy a mansion but the transaction fell through. How should law enforcement respond? Is there any amount of cash where you'd say "Something isn't right here"?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I agree that $2M cash in a vehicle seems suspicious, yes, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's probable cause without additional evidence. In part because having $2M cash isn't illegal, and in part because if you make it illegal, you have to start defining what the maximum acceptable amount of cash is.
    - chrismcb 5y ago
      10,000 USD. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just saying that 10k is currently the accepted maximum. Actually it is 9,999.99.
csomar 5y ago
That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him. If we let things happen based on individual suspicion, all hell will break loose. I suspect (based on your username that you are a serial killer). It shouldn't give me the right to take your assets, arrest you, etc... The DEA agent is just another dude, like me. He should have 0 powers; and always defer the judgement to the competent court.
- defen 5y ago
  > That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him. I don't understand your comment. I'm not suggesting that the DEA agent should be able to put him in jail. I'm saying they should not be allowed to just seize the cash. I'm asking if people think it would be ok for them to apply for a warrant to check his email/phone records based on the info they have (man carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation), and if it would be ok for a judge to approve that warrant. A search warrant doesn't mean he gets arrested.
  - runako 5y ago
    > carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation "Unlikely" in _your_ experience. Your suggestion is a prescription for the police going on fishing expeditions of the poor and unlucky who are least able to defend themselves. (Poor people are more likely to use cash for everything, and less likely to have alternatives.) Just because you're not arresting them doesn't mean it isn't harassment.
  - csomar 5y ago
    Fair enough. A warrant issued by a judge that is required for every case is good enough.
34679 5y ago
No. Probable cause requires evidence that a crime is taking place or is about to take place, not suspicion that a crime is about to take place. As an example, I remember a story of a judge who threw out a case for lack of probable cause: An officer pulled over someone who had removed their hat after seeing the officer. The officer reasoned that the individual removed his hat to avoid being profiled and stopped by the officer, which the officer deemed suspicious. The judge agreed it was suspicious, but ruled that merely removing one's hat is not evidence of a crime.
runako 5y ago
If a person has bad/no credit, should they be allowed to purchase a vehicle? Or should they be forced to pay usurious rates to purchase that vehicle, even if they have the full purchase amount in cash?
- bradwood 5y ago
  Credit should have nothing to do with the ability to pay cash for something.
- defen 5y ago
  Of course they should be able to. I'm saying that the totality of the story (spending $30,000, which represents all of your money, when you're unemployed, to buy a vehicle in cash from a stranger who lives 1,000 miles away) is suspicious.
  - runako 5y ago
    My point is it's only suspicious to you. Another interpretation: - Person is unemployed and so needs to find the best deal on everything. The best deal happens to be far away. - person needs a vehicle so he can get to a job - person has bad credit and/or is unbanked - person is not in a position to buy a $14,000 loan ($30k @ 20%, prevailing rate for "deep subprime" used car loans per Experian) This person is spending their last money to invest in their next job. How would you move the money if you don't have a bank? Richer people buy cars from other states all the time, for example by paying CarMax or a dealer a transfer fee to move the car for them (and thereby are not getting the best deal as the dealer takes a margin).
    - defen 5y ago
      > - person needs a vehicle so he can get to a job You don't need a $30,000 truck (which, again, represents your life savings) to get to work. Just the cost of collision insurance and the cost of flying to Columbus and driving it back to New Orleans would wipe out any putative savings obtained. Again, I'm not saying the cops should have seized his money. I'm explicitly saying they shouldn't be able to do that. I'm asking if there's a middle ground between "cops can arbitrarily decide to seize any cash you're carrying" (status quo) and "there is no amount of cash that a person can possess which triggers reasonable suspicion of illegal activity" (what many people here seem to be advocating)
chrismcb 5y ago
No. It isn't suspect and it shouldn't be reasonable for a warrant.

by defen 5y ago

asah 5y ago

Perhaps true but it's a _very_ dangerous precedent to allow legal behavior to be treated as "suspicious" and grounds for anything. Want an example? You and I are posting on an internet forum whose name has the word "hacker" in the title !! :-)

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

Saying that the police should use the presence of cash as reasons to search someone's phone and travel records with the backing of the Drug War is a losing proposition. Always seeking to tie in actions to the Drug War is how we got to the instance that's being discussed.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Do people think the events described would be a reasonable basis to obtain a warrant for phone / travel records, to see if he'd been associating with known drug dealers? I'm not sure I'd support this, but I wouldn't be viscerally opposed to it either. Taking the money on the basis of that suspicion alone, however, is criminal.

ceejayoz 5y ago

There are plenty of people who don't trust the banking systems. If you've bounced checks in the past, you may also be blacklisted from them entirely. Quite a few Americans rely on check cashing places because they don't have an account. (edit: 5.4% of Americans don't have a bank. https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html) A person shouldn't be subject to seizure of their savings just because they're a little different than most in the handling of their finances. I might be OK with the warrant you describe, but that's not what this was.

defen 5y ago
> A person shouldn't be subject to seizure of their savings just because they're a little different than most in the handling of their finances. I agree, that was the whole point of my comment. > I might be OK with the warrant you describe, but that's not what this was. I know, that's why I presented hypothetical alternative actions law enforcement could have taken, as a thought experiment. At the root of the issue is this: absent explicit evidence of a crime, should possession of arbitrary amounts of cash be considered suspect? Suppose he'd been pulled over with 2 million dollars cash in a truck and said he'd intended to use it to buy a mansion but the transaction fell through. How should law enforcement respond? Is there any amount of cash where you'd say "Something isn't right here"?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I agree that $2M cash in a vehicle seems suspicious, yes, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's probable cause without additional evidence. In part because having $2M cash isn't illegal, and in part because if you make it illegal, you have to start defining what the maximum acceptable amount of cash is.
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    10,000 USD. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just saying that 10k is currently the accepted maximum. Actually it is 9,999.99.

csomar 5y ago

That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him. If we let things happen based on individual suspicion, all hell will break loose. I suspect (based on your username that you are a serial killer). It shouldn't give me the right to take your assets, arrest you, etc... The DEA agent is just another dude, like me. He should have 0 powers; and always defer the judgement to the competent court.

defen 5y ago
> That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him. I don't understand your comment. I'm not suggesting that the DEA agent should be able to put him in jail. I'm saying they should not be allowed to just seize the cash. I'm asking if people think it would be ok for them to apply for a warrant to check his email/phone records based on the info they have (man carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation), and if it would be ok for a judge to approve that warrant. A search warrant doesn't mean he gets arrested.
- runako 5y ago
  > carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation "Unlikely" in _your_ experience. Your suggestion is a prescription for the police going on fishing expeditions of the poor and unlucky who are least able to defend themselves. (Poor people are more likely to use cash for everything, and less likely to have alternatives.) Just because you're not arresting them doesn't mean it isn't harassment.
- csomar 5y ago
  Fair enough. A warrant issued by a judge that is required for every case is good enough.

34679 5y ago

No. Probable cause requires evidence that a crime is taking place or is about to take place, not suspicion that a crime is about to take place. As an example, I remember a story of a judge who threw out a case for lack of probable cause: An officer pulled over someone who had removed their hat after seeing the officer. The officer reasoned that the individual removed his hat to avoid being profiled and stopped by the officer, which the officer deemed suspicious. The judge agreed it was suspicious, but ruled that merely removing one's hat is not evidence of a crime.

runako 5y ago

If a person has bad/no credit, should they be allowed to purchase a vehicle? Or should they be forced to pay usurious rates to purchase that vehicle, even if they have the full purchase amount in cash?

bradwood 5y ago
Credit should have nothing to do with the ability to pay cash for something.
defen 5y ago
Of course they should be able to. I'm saying that the totality of the story (spending $30,000, which represents all of your money, when you're unemployed, to buy a vehicle in cash from a stranger who lives 1,000 miles away) is suspicious.
- runako 5y ago
  My point is it's only suspicious to you. Another interpretation: - Person is unemployed and so needs to find the best deal on everything. The best deal happens to be far away. - person needs a vehicle so he can get to a job - person has bad credit and/or is unbanked - person is not in a position to buy a $14,000 loan ($30k @ 20%, prevailing rate for "deep subprime" used car loans per Experian) This person is spending their last money to invest in their next job. How would you move the money if you don't have a bank? Richer people buy cars from other states all the time, for example by paying CarMax or a dealer a transfer fee to move the car for them (and thereby are not getting the best deal as the dealer takes a margin).
  - defen 5y ago
    > - person needs a vehicle so he can get to a job You don't need a $30,000 truck (which, again, represents your life savings) to get to work. Just the cost of collision insurance and the cost of flying to Columbus and driving it back to New Orleans would wipe out any putative savings obtained. Again, I'm not saying the cops should have seized his money. I'm explicitly saying they shouldn't be able to do that. I'm asking if there's a middle ground between "cops can arbitrarily decide to seize any cash you're carrying" (status quo) and "there is no amount of cash that a person can possess which triggers reasonable suspicion of illegal activity" (what many people here seem to be advocating)

chrismcb 5y ago

No. It isn't suspect and it shouldn't be reasonable for a warrant.