7 ms·

That doesn't justify the search and seizure of all his customers' property without due process.

mikeyouse 4y ago
There's clearly a balance to be had - but if millions of dollars in ill-gotten cash and property in the boxes were his (as he's admitted) then of course the Feds are going to seize those and any others with unknown provenance. It's not like this was a bank, it was in a strip mall. Judges have been siding on behalf of people who haven't been accused of crimes, and they've had their property returned (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-26/judge-rules-against-fbi-beverly-hills-raid https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-26/judge-ru...) which of course is proper.
- dhbanes 4y ago
  > It's not like this was a bank, it was in a strip mall. Not sure what you're getting at here. Beverly Hills has a very large population of Iranian Jews, many of whom do not trust safe deposit boxes in banks because of their own lived experiences in Iran in 1979. This was a business filling a need in our community.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Same with people in former USSR countries. They still do quite a bit in cash and tend not to trust banks.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> That doesn't justify the search and seizure of all his customers' property without due process. The fundamental due process issue doesn't seem to be in dispute, though remedies for that are being litigated. What the article is focussed on is not the due process issues, but the right of people outside of those directly affected and whose rights related to involved property are being litigated to law enforcement background information relating to the planning for the operations, which is a completely separate issue.
- indymike 4y ago
  The issue with all of this is that we're allowing actions against property while not respecting the rights of the owner. The FBI/cops can and should raid a place being used for crime, but it does not mean the cops should get to keep all the property that is seized. A much more mundane situation: Dad shouldn't have the family car auctioned off because his kid's friend decided to shoot up in the back seat. This civil asset forfeiture thing is insanely unconstitutional.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    That example seems clear cut from both ethical and constitutional perspectives. If juveniles use your property to commit crimes, that property is rightly in jeopardy.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'm not sure that's true, but if it is that is absolutely terrifying and I hope it is rectified at once. I think this would lead to the seizure of all public parks in my city.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        I guess like all libertarians you will be surprised to learn that there is a separate body of jurisprudence around public property, separate from private property law.
        notch656a 4y ago
        I am rarely surprised to learn anything anymore in the various laws used to part the common joe of his property.
      - indymike 4y ago
        Google civil asset forfeiture. It is absolutely nuts.
    - 4y ago

There's clearly a balance to be had - but if millions of dollars in ill-gotten cash and property in the boxes were his (as he's admitted) then of course the Feds are going to seize those and any others with unknown provenance. It's not like this was a bank, it was in a strip mall. Judges have been siding on behalf of people who haven't been accused of crimes, and they've had their property returned (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-26/judge-rules-against-fbi-beverly-hills-raid https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-26/judge-ru...) which of course is proper.

dhbanes 4y ago
> It's not like this was a bank, it was in a strip mall. Not sure what you're getting at here. Beverly Hills has a very large population of Iranian Jews, many of whom do not trust safe deposit boxes in banks because of their own lived experiences in Iran in 1979. This was a business filling a need in our community.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Same with people in former USSR countries. They still do quite a bit in cash and tend not to trust banks.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> That doesn't justify the search and seizure of all his customers' property without due process. The fundamental due process issue doesn't seem to be in dispute, though remedies for that are being litigated. What the article is focussed on is not the due process issues, but the right of people outside of those directly affected and whose rights related to involved property are being litigated to law enforcement background information relating to the planning for the operations, which is a completely separate issue.

indymike 4y ago
The issue with all of this is that we're allowing actions against property while not respecting the rights of the owner. The FBI/cops can and should raid a place being used for crime, but it does not mean the cops should get to keep all the property that is seized. A much more mundane situation: Dad shouldn't have the family car auctioned off because his kid's friend decided to shoot up in the back seat. This civil asset forfeiture thing is insanely unconstitutional.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  That example seems clear cut from both ethical and constitutional perspectives. If juveniles use your property to commit crimes, that property is rightly in jeopardy.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm not sure that's true, but if it is that is absolutely terrifying and I hope it is rectified at once. I think this would lead to the seizure of all public parks in my city.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      I guess like all libertarians you will be surprised to learn that there is a separate body of jurisprudence around public property, separate from private property law.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I am rarely surprised to learn anything anymore in the various laws used to part the common joe of his property.
    - indymike 4y ago
      Google civil asset forfeiture. It is absolutely nuts.
  - 4y ago