10 ms·
Using loophole, Seward County seizes millions from motorists without convictions
- ryanwaggoner 3y agoHaven’t we been hearing about the horrors of civil asset forfeiture for more than a decade? Why is this still happening? Is there any sizeable constituency for this? Does anyone think this is a good idea, other than the corrupt law enforcement officers who are benefiting?
- Simulacra 3y agoBecause it's profitable.
- School-Cotton 3y ago> Why is this still happening? What would cause it to stop happening? State control over the police in the US is imperfect, and, since the US is a fundamentally flawed democracy for deep structural reasons, popular control over the state is even more limited. Thus there are two separate reasons why this wouldn’t be stopped even if most people were against it (which is by no means clear anyway).
- ddq 3y agoMy hope with stories like this is broader awareness and understanding of the deep systemic flaws in the U.S. as a State. In so many areas, the amassed institutional power far exceeds the popular will to challenge it in any serious, effective capacity, the sheer number of such examples a shotgun effect discouraging resistance. I’d like to dream that it would become fairly obvious to the majority that these institutions simply are not under actual popular control, have no true accountability, and are in baldfaced defiance of the country’s founding principles and Constitution. I have yet to hear any convincing argument that this assessment is wrong, so hopefully the number of Americans who agree will someday reach a critical mass.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- photonbeam 3y agoHas there been any significant challenges to this system?
- fzeroracer 3y agoIt's still happening because people believe the police to be above the law. Look at how hard people go to bat for officers that murder someone and have it caught on video, how expansive qualified immunity is. When these kinds of issues go to court, it's very hard to get people to look beyond the idea that blue badge good which makes any court case a massive uphill battle. It's not that the police are right, it's that if you get harassed by the police or pulled over etc that you clearly did something wrong, and people will contort themselves into a pretzel to make that logic true.
- uLogMicheal 3y agoThe sizeable constituency has been isolated into tiny bubbles of self-absorption.
- klodolph 3y agoIt's a slow process fixing it, and the police departments don't want it fixed, and the police departments have a lot of leverage. It is slowly being fixed, however.
- loeg 3y agoWhat makes you say it is slowly being fixed?
- klodolph 3y agoLaws are being passed across the country which ban, or attempt to ban the practice. This is being done on a state-by-state basis.
- loeg 3y agoAnywhere other than New Mexico (2015)? That's the only example I can find on the Wikipedia article on the subject.
- klodolph 3y agoYes, other states as well, such as mentioned in the article: > The sheriff’s office has specialized in and perfected the practice, known as civil asset forfeiture, despite a 2016 law meant to ban it in Nebraska. Other laws have either passed, not been passed, or are being written in other states. I’m not going to dig up more citations for a dead thread buried in the HN archives—it is easy enough to find out about these laws being passed. If you can’t find information on Wikipedia, you will have to look elsewhere. I know traditional news sources carry stories about legislation, so I recommend starting there.
- loeg 3y agoMan, I was just curious. My impression was that progress had been slow.
- isleyaardvark 3y ago>In 2016, Garrett led an effort to change Nebraska’s forfeiture laws. The bill, when passed, led state senators and civil liberties advocates to believe they had abolished state civil asset forfeiture. >The 2016 law was designed to require a criminal conviction before the state could seize money, according to the bill’s statement of intent. >But the Legislature left two loopholes. Seizures over $25,000 could circumvent state law entirely by being adopted into federal court. >And law enforcement could still seize assets under state law if evidence connected the cash to drugs – even if there are no drugs in the car. Because law enforcement is determined to steal people's money.
- yieldcrv 3y ago> Why is this still happening? Because nationally its been upheld as constitutional and would require a constitutional amendment. This interpretation of the sixth amendment isn't open to other interpretations. Specifically that civil cases are different than criminal cases, so they civilly charge the asset itself and the not the human being. Whoops. Subsequently, some states started changing their own laws to stop the practice in their state, including the state in this article but it didn't work. Obviously if they started seizing bank branches under probably cause of criminal activity, it would change overnight, but nobody wants a real challenge so they don't.
- sokoloff 3y agoThere's still the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures, which seems like it gives grounds here.
- yieldcrv 3y agodrivers either allow the search "I have nothing to hide", or the drug dog gives a false positive for probable cause the police aren't skipping these procedures
- sokoloff 3y agoThe seizure part is more relevant here.
- yieldcrv 3y agoOkay. Well look at the current case law. The courts are not in a place to invalidate existing laws, so the legislatures are required to change those laws. Or a clarifying constitutional amendment is required. If you can think of a shortcut nobody else thought of then go for it.
- UncleMeat 3y agoSadly, a nontrivial portion of the scotus doesn’t give a shit about the 4th and will happily let police steal from people because drugs.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago> Why is this still happening? Unions the police want it to stay and they have a very strong Union. It's the other side of well coordinated collection action it can allow a very small minority to hold the rest of the people hostage.
- raincom 3y agoCivil asset forfeiture it is, and the cases are titled as $x,000 v. California/Nebraska/etc.
- totallywrong 3y agoWait what? The police there is allowed to straight up rob civilians their cash? Why?
- sclarisse 3y agoWhy? Cash. Next question!
- naikrovek 3y agopolice just about everywhere in the US are allowed to do this.
- wyldfire 3y agoIt's a laughably ludicrous violation of the Fourth Amendment. I can only assume that its constitutionality is not challenged in court or is challenged and not upheld. It's unjust, but many of the victims are actual criminals and so nothing is done.
- EscapeFromNY 3y ago> many of the victims are actual criminals Very few of the victims are criminals. https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized... > One more data point supports this contention: At the federal level, at least, "the vast majority of forfeiture victims are never convicted or charged with a crime," according to Carpenter. Using data obtained via FOIA requests, Carpenter found that 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings were civil cases, not criminal ones. "It's troubling that 87% of the time the conviction appears to be irrelevant," co-author Lisa Knepper said.
- lostcolony 3y agoAnd, of course, if you -do- agree to just let the money go, they won't actually charge you. So the people who can afford to lose the money (criminals) get to avoid a charge just by bribing the cops, and the people who did nothing wrong have to pay the cops. Crooked all around.
- kickout 3y agoDrive through this county everyday. The tricks they got up their sleeve are impressive if you don’t have a local plate. RIP to Illinois and Cali plates. ETA: Yes, everyday you drive through this county you will see cops searching vehicles (usually out of state plates, CO/CA/IL the most obvious). Almost feel bad for legit people driving through I80 with out of state plates, but the's what happens when you have a low population state with a major thoroughfare. They have some really clever social engineering tactics too that a former worker of mine tipped me on.
- Buttons840 3y agoDo they have warrants to search to vehicles, or do they trick people into agreeing to the search? Or maybe they have a dog that does something like breathe near the vehicle, which is clearly cause for suspicion (\s)?
- raincom 3y agoThey use legally sanctioned loopholes wrt fourth amendment: four legged warrants = dog sniff
- kickout 3y agoAll of the above. Id say >90% don't have a warrant and make up some weak PC (the mentioned air freshener in rear view mirror is popular).
- boomboomsubban 3y agoThe case in the story had the officers request a search, which was denied, then bring in a drug dog that responded despite no drugs being found.
- WatchDog 3y agoI imagine most people consent to a search, and they do the dog trick to search those that don’t.
- arcticbull 3y ago> ... but the's what happens when you have a low population state with a major thoroughfare. Well, not really - that's what happens when you don't fully fund your law enforcement at a state or federal level and instead leave them to fund themselves through fines and seizures. Local authorities shouldn't be allowed to keep a single penny of anything they seize or any fines they rack up. They should be fully funded by higher-level authorities based on demonstrated need. The current setup is rife with obvious moral hazard.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoI see it as some sort of punishment for not using the banking system, which is where transactions, balances and such can be observed by the IRS. When you use a bank account, all transactions over $10,000 are reported to the IRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
- kickout 3y agoNice wad of cash you got there, be a shame if you had to prove provenance...
- jlick 3y ago...also if you make deposits just under $10k or make multiple deposits that add up to $10k+ in $ArbitraryTimePeriod they can be reported as suspected "structuring." Structuring is a technique to spread out transactions to avoid reporting. But it also catches people who just happen to have transactions that look like structuring. There was an example of a rural store owner that made deposits around $8k because that was their revenue and it got seized because the government thought they were structuring.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoYes. They also can flag you using Benford's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
- kuhn 3y agoAs someone not from the US I thought John Oliver did a great job of explaining Civil Forfeiture a few years back https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks
- totallywrong 3y ago"It's really legalized robbery by law enforcement"
- _fat_santa 3y agoThis raises a question: why carry that much cash with you? Two things can be true at the same time: cops should not be seizing cash from folks on the side of the road without clear evidence of a crime, and it looks shady as hell if you are traveling with $18k in the backseat of your car.
- garciasn 3y agoHe wanted to vacation, gamble, buy legal cannabis in CO, and maybe buy a new car. It said as much in the article.
- adrr 3y agoSeems like victim blaming like “why was wearing such a short skirt”. It’s not against the law to carry cash.
- zarzavat 3y agoIt seems like it is de facto against the law to carry cash, if it’s legal for the police to confiscate it.
- dmitrygr 3y ago> why carry that much cash with you? Because I am a citizen of this allegedly free country and I just might want to!
- grogenaut 3y agoWhy should I not have cash on hand? I just redid my deck and fence. I paid Time+Materials. Guy brought me the materials and the receipts, I paid cash for the materials upfront. That was $35k in materials, in several $10k chunks. This happens all the time in the real world. The guy does several jobs at a time. My wife was concerned about us having that much cash in our safe. This contractor is doing it all the time probbably 5x that amount and it's all legal. Bought several cars over the years, in cash. Why would I do a cashieres check? Who would take it except where a bank instantly validates it. Did the title transfer at the dmv, seller got cash so knew he wasn't getting screwed, DMV moved the title right there and validates it all so I knew I wasn't getting screwed. Those were $~15k each. Motorcycle? $8k cash.
- yieldcrv 3y agoI always chuckle when I hear boomers reminiscence about how we differentiate from communist countries because of our strong private property protections. I fail to see a difference aside from shared willingness to for random state actors to play along with that shared desire.
- skeeter2020 3y agoWhy throw shade on boomers? I'm pretty sure I could find people of any age on both sides of this.
- yieldcrv 3y agobecause that's who I hear it from as if its a whole identity
- alanfranz 3y agoWhile the cited behaviour is really astonishing, as a EU citizen, I must say that I still find it very curious that somebody drives around the country with that large amount of cash. I'd never (and most people here wouldn't either) travel with more than, say, $1000 in cash, and I would rely on ATM/electronic transactions/checks for additional money. Surely it wouldn't be illegal in any EU country that I know of (but in some countries there's a maximum allowed amount of cash you can use in any single transaction, something between EUR 1000 and 3000), but just any law enforcement would find such an amount of cash suspicious, and probably trigger an investigation.
- Waterluvian 3y agoAs a Canadian I’ve wondered stuff like that too. What I think I’ve learned is that Americans can be deeply principled people. Beyond reasons like “I’m buying a used car” or “yes this is drug money” there’s also the reason of, “I’m doing it because it’s my right to.” And I’ve met many Americans who do things for no personal gain other than just to keep their rights exercised. I used to scoff at this kind of thing. But I think I’m slowly learning some of the inner mechanics of American Liberty.
- kickout 3y agoCorrect. A lot but not all of these are likely legit drug seizures, but there should be absolutely no way LE has free reign like this. Physical cash/gold/asset possession should be protected by all countries IMO
- passerby1 3y ago> but just any law enforcement would find such an amount of cash suspicious, and probably trigger an investigation It feels like it's almost illegal to own cash when I read this. Would someone please tell why? It's OK to live in a debt, probably a very high one, buying expensive things like luxury car in credit. Is it forbidden to save cash? If it's OK, then why is it suspicious to travel in a car with cash?
- deleted 3y ago
- anjel 3y agohttps://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Seward-County-Sheriff-Nebraska-Salaries-E203591.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Seward-County-Sheriff-Nebra...
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y agoWas there one listed? As of this moment it says there are none.
- bastard_op 3y ago[dead]
- bandyaboot 3y agoUntil federal courts put a stop to this insanity, I think congress should pass a bill that cuts off Federal Highway funding to any state that allows this sort of thing to happen.
- duxup 3y agoState of Nebraska can put an end to it, they choose not to.
- gwbrooks 3y agoWhat's worse: The county government can put an end to it, they choose not too. Most discussions about reforming or ending civil asset forfeiture focus on statehouse and federal solutions, but there's nothing stopping local governments from simply reining in their law enforcement via policy direction.
- duxup 3y agoI’ve seen some states take action and limit different forms of forfeiture. So it at least happens. SCOTUS also has taken limited action recently.
- paxys 3y agoYou have to study the US political landscape for 5 minutes to understand why this will never happen. Police departments across the country, states benefiting from such practices as well as the US Congress are all dominated by the republican party. They are not going to legislate away their own power to transfer money from citizens of liberal states.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoComments like this, however well-meaning, are so frustrating because they invite such a wide variety of reality checks that correct the specific impossibilities … but there is a very clear imperative and nothing to attach it to. Federal courts should, and won’t. Congress should, and won’t. There are numerous others who should, and won’t. We have countless examples of impenetrable injustice like this, and there isn’t any structural way to justice that’s remotely reliable or trustworthy. And it’s easy enough to respond with the glibness that others have: the reality is that the appropriate authorities are craven and the “should” is hopelessly naive. The answer to that is one I continually find unfortunate and yet necessary. There are no heroes. No one is coming to save us but ourselves and each other. The body which will put a stop to this is us. And it won’t be done by behaving and deferring to some different part of the system that enables it.
- _HMCB_ 3y agoIt’s literally highway robbery.
- boringg 3y agoWell played and accurate
- kirykl 3y agoOklahoma used to drain prepaid debit cards too not just cash, not sure if still the case https://oklahomawatch.org/2016/06/07/new-front-in-civil-forfeiture-okla-authorities-get-devices-to-seize-funds-loaded-onto-prepaid-cards/ https://oklahomawatch.org/2016/06/07/new-front-in-civil-forf...
- tptacek 3y agoWithout wanting to offer an opinion on the case presented in this article, and certainly not wanting to argue in favor of civil asset forfeiture, which is obviously abused nationwide, the author of this news piece definitely smoothed down the facts alleged in Bouldin's case: The officer testified to various pieces of information that he obtained during the stop that led him to believe that Bouldin intended to purchase a large amount of marijuana with the seized money. Among other things, the officer testified that Bouldin told the officer he was traveling from his home in Virginia to Colorado; that a certified drug dog positively indicated the presence of illegal narcotics in the vehicle; that Bouldin's phone had pictures of marijuana taken in both Virginia and Colorado; that a Colorado area code phone number had sent text messages to Bouldin's phone containing photographs and video of what the officer identified as marijuana and "THC wax"; that Bouldin had sent text messages to the same number requesting "8 widow" and "8 goat"; and that in the officer's opinion, the person using the other phone number was offering to sell marijuana and "THC wax," and that Bouldin was agreeing to make a purchase. The State also introduced evidence that Bouldin had previously been convicted in Utah of attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Bouldin's attorney did an abysmal job with this case, with Bouldin originally failing to appear at all, and then filing an appeal that failed to state any meaningful arguments. Again: obviously, there's a counterpoint that people shouldn't have to hire lawyers to keep their cash, I get it.
- lolinder 3y agoWhat Bouldin described is extortion, plain and simple: > There, on the side of the road, 1,300 miles from his Virginia home, in a state where Bouldin knew no one, a sheriff’s deputy handed him a form. > You can sign this piece of paper, abandon the $18,000, avoid arrest and continue on to Colorado, he says he was told. > Don’t sign, and you will go to jail. You could face felony charges. Your van will be towed. Your dog will be taken to the pound. I don't care how many laws he'd broken in the past, law enforcement officers should never be allowed to act that way. If they sincerely believed he was breaking the law, their duty was to arrest him and let him be tried by a jury. Offering to let him go in exchange for $18k in cash is pure corruption no matter how you slice it: either he was an innocent victim of extortion, or they were asking for a bribe to let him off the hook.
- chrisbrandow 3y agoI’ve had this explained to me before but I can never fully understand the constitutionality civil forfeiture.
- landemva 3y agoI get a yearly letter from county Treasurer demanding I pay them to avoid having my private, not commercial, house stolen. Government asset seizure is widespread.
- kobalsky 3y agowait a moment. do they auction the house and just keep the unpaid taxes or do they keep 100% of it?
- landemva 3y agoThey sell the "tax debt". After some time the purchaser of the debt paper can ask Treasurer to make a special deed for the whole property. Poof it's all gone.
- ftyers 3y agoWhen you bought your house in that place you agreed to pay that tax. You could have bought it somewhere else (with fewer services or job opportunities). I'm not disagreeing that it sucks, but you could just move to rural Mexico and not have to deal with your county treasurer.
- landemva 3y ago>> you agreed to pay that tax. It is not in seller's disclosure. It is not a recorded lien against the property. I did not sign a services contract with county. Most everbody pays the bill because government power.
- efitz 3y agoCAF makes my blood boil. If not for the uniforms these people would be called bandits. How did we end up with so many people in law enforcement and the judicial system who have accepted “the end justifies the means” or “you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette”? I would love to see legislation at every level forbidding civil fines and forfeitures from benefitting the locality imposing them. Let such revenue go to the state or federal treasury and forbid any kickback type scheme (which is how the federal government hooks localities on CAF; they split the take).
- bongoman37 3y ago[dead]
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoCivil asset forfeiture should be abolished. It should not be possible to take property without due process, nor should it be possible to abandon property on the side of the road. It just doesn't make sense. Also, when stuff like this gets taken, part of it goes to the state, part to the county. That needs to end too. We see it over and over, take the incentive away and this stops. How can those sheriffs and deputies look in the mirror at the end of the day?
- exabrial 3y agoI’m a firm believer in no rights removed without a trial, and the police have 0 right to seize $18k rolled up in a seat… but also, who does that? Incredibly stupid for a lot of reasons. Yes it’s your prerogative, but just because you can, didn’t mean you should
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- vpastore 3y ago[dead]