3 ms·

Wait what? The police there is allowed to straight up rob civilians their cash? Why?

by totallywrong 3y ago

sclarisse 3y ago
Why? Cash. Next question!
naikrovek 3y ago
police just about everywhere in the US are allowed to do this.
wyldfire 3y ago
It'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 ago
    And, 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.
- raincom 3y ago
  Dog sniff is legally sanctioned to get around the fourth amendment. In these cases, the govt violates due process, excessive fines, etc. Recently SCOTUS agreed to take the case Culley v. Marshall to examine these: https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-reexamine-use-of-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...
- lostcolony 3y ago
  If you read the article you'd see just the opposite. People without any actual charge, or any actual evidence, who have had the state supreme court in Nebraska still side with 'law enforcement'. Because that is modern day policing. Hell, there was a Supreme Court case that sided with law enforcement that they have -no obligation- to protect citizens. It's why you get stuff like Uvalde. The police exist solely to enforce state authority, not to serve and protect.
UncleMeat 3y ago
Not just cash. Cars and even houses too! Policing in the us is a nightmare.
- hnick 3y ago
  For those unaware, here is an example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/30/grandmother-who-lost-her-home-because-her-son-sold-marijuana-wins-at-pennsylvania-supreme-court/?sh=564fd0752fa2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/30/... She let her son live with her, he sold less than $200 of marijuana, and her home (lived in since the 1970s) and car were seized as facilitating a drug transaction. She eventually won, after more than seven years.
  - BlakeSimpson 3y ago
    I was about to reference the same story! Glad I wasn't the only one that remembered this.

Wait what? The police there is allowed to straight up rob civilians their cash? Why?

sclarisse 3y ago

Why? Cash. Next question!

naikrovek 3y ago

police just about everywhere in the US are allowed to do this.

wyldfire 3y ago

It'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 ago
  And, 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.
raincom 3y ago
Dog sniff is legally sanctioned to get around the fourth amendment. In these cases, the govt violates due process, excessive fines, etc. Recently SCOTUS agreed to take the case Culley v. Marshall to examine these: https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-reexamine-use-of-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...
lostcolony 3y ago
If you read the article you'd see just the opposite. People without any actual charge, or any actual evidence, who have had the state supreme court in Nebraska still side with 'law enforcement'. Because that is modern day policing. Hell, there was a Supreme Court case that sided with law enforcement that they have -no obligation- to protect citizens. It's why you get stuff like Uvalde. The police exist solely to enforce state authority, not to serve and protect.

UncleMeat 3y ago

Not just cash. Cars and even houses too! Policing in the us is a nightmare.

hnick 3y ago
For those unaware, here is an example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/30/grandmother-who-lost-her-home-because-her-son-sold-marijuana-wins-at-pennsylvania-supreme-court/?sh=564fd0752fa2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/30/... She let her son live with her, he sold less than $200 of marijuana, and her home (lived in since the 1970s) and car were seized as facilitating a drug transaction. She eventually won, after more than seven years.
- BlakeSimpson 3y ago
  I was about to reference the same story! Glad I wasn't the only one that remembered this.