13 ms·

Nevada court shuts down police use of federal loophole for civil forfeiture

474 points by greyface- 2y ago

PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
[flagged]
- jjallen 2y ago
  Possession of money should not be a crime. Not everyone with money is “shady”.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Exactly. And the appropriate "safeguard" is conviction of a crime. At sentencing, it would be appropriate for a court to consider whether some amount of money constitutes the proceeds of a crime, and what the appropriate disposition of that money would be to best provided restitution to those harmed by the crime. And if there is some belief that something might happen to the assets before then, we have processes like preliminary injunctions, which have a high burden of proof. Until one of those things happens, there are no grounds to justify seizure of any assets.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >Possession of money should not be a crime. Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      Hyperbolic If you don’t mind reporting when moving into the electronic cash system or between borders then it is not illegal
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        The "they didn't hassle me or even notice this time" theory of non-illegality.
        yieldcrv 2y ago
        Uhm no The vast vast majority of the money supply exists as electronic balances, the entire M2 If you have a liquidity concern about harassment then have balances and passive growth in all forms of liquidity. Cash, electronic cash, crypto. Then you never have to transfer balances between those systems and dont have to make it your whole identity.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > Cash has been illegal for a long time... Weird. I pay for nearly everything with cash. I agree that nearly all of the rest of the stuff your comment describes is totally real and totally bullshit, but please don't ruin a good retelling of the facts with breathless hyperbole.
      - AngryData 2y ago
        People do illegal stuff all the time without even knowing it, that doesn't mean the cops and courts can't still fuck you over with it at any time. And even if you just had $20 in your pocket, a cop could seize it and claim they think it was used to buy or was going to sometime in the future buy drugs, and legally that is a completely valid reason even if you have zero drugs in your system and zero on you and were inside a McDonalds waiting in line to buy a burger.
        simoncion 2y ago
  - PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
    [dead]
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  It's amazing how the presumption of innocence – one of the pillars of a fair justice system – has eroded away in the popular consciousness in the last few decades. I'm not sure what inspires takes like this beyond sheer callousness, to simply not wonder what happens to those wrongfully convicted/affected by prejudice. Thinking they did it isn't knowing, and it certainly isn't enough to justify ruining (or taking) someone's life.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness. I suspect that it's roughly at the same place as it was in the 1980s. I suspect the big differences that shape one's contemporary perception of the topic are the conversion of most major US-based news agencies to publishing very little but "shock and outrage" stories, and the prevalence of the Internet Hate Machine that is clickbait-promoting "social media" pushing rage-and/or-sorrow-inducing stories in one's face. But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness I'm certain the social media and sensationalist broadcast media have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. Further to that, some of the wins of civil libertarians against draconian law enforcement has been eroded away by giving law enforcement sweeping powers via circumventions on due process such as the Patriot Act and that which is detailed in the OP
      - simoncion 2y ago
        > ...have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. I dunno, man. Hang out with better people? Or maybe have a conversation with the ones you do hang out with to discover their actual opinions, rather than taking their Internet-hard-man bloviation at face value? > ...by giving law enforcement sweeping powers... What Congresscritters gives the cops has very little to do with what us little people think is important.
courseofaction 2y ago
The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?
- spencerflem 2y ago
  why would I do that? :p
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > CMV? Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
  - eesmith 2y ago
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Reddit lingo. Change My View.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that before. Let's not do that.
      - SllX 2y ago
        1) Let’s not prescribe language-use on the web instead. Something that originates in one place does not always stay in one place. How does that sound? 2) It’s abbreviated in every single thread on the sub in which it originated: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ 3) Now that you have seen it and received the explanation, you will recognize it and can be the messenger in the future.
blindriver 2y ago
How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.
- nadermx 2y ago
  If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    I read that as "those who watch it already know". Could you or someone else share what’s shown in that series? I’m not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The Wire is about the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is responsible for probably 75% of the shockingly oppressive laws still on the books, with most of the balance being the War on Terror.
    - defrost 2y ago
      There's a scene in which an aide for a city politician is stopped leaving known drug dealing actors and the car is found to have bag stuffed with a large amount of cash which is seized. The point moving forward is will anybody claim the cash and offer an explanation as to where it came from. The above "you'll know why" appears to carry an implicit "because all cash with no receipt is criminal proceeds". The problem with that is stories abound of Police seizing cash and other assets and keeping them, spending money, auctioning goods, etc that were never criminal proceeds .. or rather never proved to be criminal proceeds.
      - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
        Okay, but there's a world of difference between a large amount of cash that nobody wants to claim because police know it's drug money versus an innocent person that the police have stolen money from without any true suspicion and the person has been fighting in the courts for years to get their money back.
opentokix 2y ago
USA is truly a fucked up country
- lolc 2y ago
  The fact that we read about single instances like this means some important things are not that fucked. Namely reporting on police misconduct happened and finally the money was returned. Looking at this the US is not particularly fucked. I wish I could set a higher bar for the world, but don't expect this to change fast.
  - elp 2y ago
    This. In my country a stop for a traffic offense is more likely to be for a bribe than for a ticket and if they found the money the officers would just keep it for themselves. On the other hand we clearly have much better banks the the USA does. Out of interest why other than crime or dodging tax would you ever carry large amounts of cash rather than just do a bank transfer?
    - ninalanyon 2y ago
      A bank transfer requires both parties to reveal their account number. I have been told by several people in both the US and the UK that this is a risky thing to do. In fact in those countries where there is no national register of residents and identifying oneself relies on things like utility bills that show your address rather than on a unique ID (personnummer in Norway) that a bank, for instance, can verify online they might actually be right, or right-ish at least. I rarely hear of identity theft in Norway where banking relies on common ID services (BankID for instance) and the folkeregister (population register) but it seems to be a major problem in, for instance, the UK where there is no equivalent.
BrenBarn 2y ago
Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
  - BrenBarn 2y ago
    In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.” Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money? No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    >It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. I'll add taxes to the list.
- krispyfi 2y ago
  It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
  - bradgessler 2y ago
    Imagine if the same logic was used for a criminal defense: "Your honor, I didn't kill $VICTIM, it was the $WEAPON that killed $VICTIM".
  - lawn 2y ago
    It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of an entire house because someone once had drugs there. There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.
MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency. I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up. On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
- pizza234 2y ago
  It's written in a referenced article (https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/): > On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings. > After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    The part about the receipts I had missed. Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect. And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it. I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
treebeard901 2y ago
The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank. Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen. At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".
- the-dude 2y ago
  > At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money...
  - MEMORYC_RRUPTED 2y ago
    While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system. Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
loa_in_ 2y ago
Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
mitch-crn 2y ago
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government Nice cartoon on the government.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
John Oliver did a section on Civil Forfeiture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks A lot of folks don't like him (politics, but he can also be a rather shrill person). He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical.
- nullc 2y ago
  I thought he was way better pre-covid-- at least showed empathy for differing views, acknowledged some tradeoffs, etc. He turned very one dimensional during covid and never recovered.
- arresin 2y ago
  > He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical. His team of researchers and comedians (ex college humor alumns) do the research and it comes out of his off-putting mouth and face.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Not to worry, they'll turn political again in a few weeks when every single negative event in the world will be blamed on the president.
dec0dedab0de 2y ago
I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed to directly benefit the police or the government they represent. Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.
- sowbug 2y ago
  Or destroy the cash in public.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jdubz79 2y ago
We need a database of any cop, lawyer, prosecutor or judge that participates in this type of bullshit. Identify, track, punish! Tyrants have home addresses!
andrewaylett 2y ago
Letting police forces retain any of the proceeds of their activities seems like a really bad idea.
bobbob1921 2y ago
This guy looks familiar from a video on YouTube of the traffic stop and cash seizure. If this in fact is the same guy and case from that video, I wonder what would’ve happened had this not been videotaped / posted online as I’m sure 99% of these similar scenarios are not. Civil forfeiture in the usa really is ridiculous, and I wish it would be radically changed/banned.
ruthmarx 2y ago
And it only took them how long to do this? If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten goods.
kyleblarson 2y ago
It seems especially ironic that this would happen in Nevada, where carrying large amounts of cash is much more normal due to the gambling industry.
honestSysAdmin 2y ago
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
silexia 2y ago
Civil asset forfeiture laws are theft our founders would have fought to the death against. Shut down the federal agencies that are so corrupt they use these to steal from citizens like us.

474 points by greyface- 2y ago

PoppinFreshDo 2y ago

[flagged]

jjallen 2y ago
Possession of money should not be a crime. Not everyone with money is “shady”.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Exactly. And the appropriate "safeguard" is conviction of a crime. At sentencing, it would be appropriate for a court to consider whether some amount of money constitutes the proceeds of a crime, and what the appropriate disposition of that money would be to best provided restitution to those harmed by the crime. And if there is some belief that something might happen to the assets before then, we have processes like preliminary injunctions, which have a high burden of proof. Until one of those things happens, there are no grounds to justify seizure of any assets.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >Possession of money should not be a crime. Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Hyperbolic If you don’t mind reporting when moving into the electronic cash system or between borders then it is not illegal
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      The "they didn't hassle me or even notice this time" theory of non-illegality.
      - yieldcrv 2y ago
        Uhm no The vast vast majority of the money supply exists as electronic balances, the entire M2 If you have a liquidity concern about harassment then have balances and passive growth in all forms of liquidity. Cash, electronic cash, crypto. Then you never have to transfer balances between those systems and dont have to make it your whole identity.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Cash has been illegal for a long time... Weird. I pay for nearly everything with cash. I agree that nearly all of the rest of the stuff your comment describes is totally real and totally bullshit, but please don't ruin a good retelling of the facts with breathless hyperbole.
    - AngryData 2y ago
      People do illegal stuff all the time without even knowing it, that doesn't mean the cops and courts can't still fuck you over with it at any time. And even if you just had $20 in your pocket, a cop could seize it and claim they think it was used to buy or was going to sometime in the future buy drugs, and legally that is a completely valid reason even if you have zero drugs in your system and zero on you and were inside a McDonalds waiting in line to buy a burger.
      - simoncion 2y ago
- PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
  [dead]
h0l0cube 2y ago
It's amazing how the presumption of innocence – one of the pillars of a fair justice system – has eroded away in the popular consciousness in the last few decades. I'm not sure what inspires takes like this beyond sheer callousness, to simply not wonder what happens to those wrongfully convicted/affected by prejudice. Thinking they did it isn't knowing, and it certainly isn't enough to justify ruining (or taking) someone's life.
- simoncion 2y ago
  I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness. I suspect that it's roughly at the same place as it was in the 1980s. I suspect the big differences that shape one's contemporary perception of the topic are the conversion of most major US-based news agencies to publishing very little but "shock and outrage" stories, and the prevalence of the Internet Hate Machine that is clickbait-promoting "social media" pushing rage-and/or-sorrow-inducing stories in one's face. But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness I'm certain the social media and sensationalist broadcast media have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. Further to that, some of the wins of civil libertarians against draconian law enforcement has been eroded away by giving law enforcement sweeping powers via circumventions on due process such as the Patriot Act and that which is detailed in the OP
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > ...have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. I dunno, man. Hang out with better people? Or maybe have a conversation with the ones you do hang out with to discover their actual opinions, rather than taking their Internet-hard-man bloviation at face value? > ...by giving law enforcement sweeping powers... What Congresscritters gives the cops has very little to do with what us little people think is important.

courseofaction 2y ago

The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?

spencerflem 2y ago
why would I do that? :p
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> CMV? Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
- eesmith 2y ago
  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
- SllX 2y ago
  Reddit lingo. Change My View.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that before. Let's not do that.
    - SllX 2y ago
      1) Let’s not prescribe language-use on the web instead. Something that originates in one place does not always stay in one place. How does that sound? 2) It’s abbreviated in every single thread on the sub in which it originated: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/ 3) Now that you have seen it and received the explanation, you will recognize it and can be the messenger in the future.

blindriver 2y ago

How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.

nadermx 2y ago
If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  I read that as "those who watch it already know". Could you or someone else share what’s shown in that series? I’m not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The Wire is about the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is responsible for probably 75% of the shockingly oppressive laws still on the books, with most of the balance being the War on Terror.
  - defrost 2y ago
    There's a scene in which an aide for a city politician is stopped leaving known drug dealing actors and the car is found to have bag stuffed with a large amount of cash which is seized. The point moving forward is will anybody claim the cash and offer an explanation as to where it came from. The above "you'll know why" appears to carry an implicit "because all cash with no receipt is criminal proceeds". The problem with that is stories abound of Police seizing cash and other assets and keeping them, spending money, auctioning goods, etc that were never criminal proceeds .. or rather never proved to be criminal proceeds.
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      Okay, but there's a world of difference between a large amount of cash that nobody wants to claim because police know it's drug money versus an innocent person that the police have stolen money from without any true suspicion and the person has been fighting in the courts for years to get their money back.

opentokix 2y ago

USA is truly a fucked up country

lolc 2y ago
The fact that we read about single instances like this means some important things are not that fucked. Namely reporting on police misconduct happened and finally the money was returned. Looking at this the US is not particularly fucked. I wish I could set a higher bar for the world, but don't expect this to change fast.
- elp 2y ago
  This. In my country a stop for a traffic offense is more likely to be for a bribe than for a ticket and if they found the money the officers would just keep it for themselves. On the other hand we clearly have much better banks the the USA does. Out of interest why other than crime or dodging tax would you ever carry large amounts of cash rather than just do a bank transfer?
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    A bank transfer requires both parties to reveal their account number. I have been told by several people in both the US and the UK that this is a risky thing to do. In fact in those countries where there is no national register of residents and identifying oneself relies on things like utility bills that show your address rather than on a unique ID (personnummer in Norway) that a bank, for instance, can verify online they might actually be right, or right-ish at least. I rarely hear of identity theft in Norway where banking relies on common ID services (BankID for instance) and the folkeregister (population register) but it seems to be a major problem in, for instance, the UK where there is no equivalent.

BrenBarn 2y ago

Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony.” Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that’s okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption. Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money? No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a hell of a lot of power.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. I'll add taxes to the list.
krispyfi 2y ago
It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
- bradgessler 2y ago
  Imagine if the same logic was used for a criminal defense: "Your honor, I didn't kill $VICTIM, it was the $WEAPON that killed $VICTIM".
- lawn 2y ago
  It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of an entire house because someone once had drugs there. There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago

I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency. I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up. On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.

pizza234 2y ago
It's written in a referenced article (https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/): > On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings. > After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  The part about the receipts I had missed. Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect. And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it. I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?

treebeard901 2y ago

The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank. Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen. At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".

the-dude 2y ago
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
- coldtea 2y ago
  Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money...
- MEMORYC_RRUPTED 2y ago
  While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system. Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.

loa_in_ 2y ago

Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment

mitch-crn 2y ago

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government Nice cartoon on the government.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

John Oliver did a section on Civil Forfeiture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks A lot of folks don't like him (politics, but he can also be a rather shrill person). He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical.

nullc 2y ago
I thought he was way better pre-covid-- at least showed empathy for differing views, acknowledged some tradeoffs, etc. He turned very one dimensional during covid and never recovered.
arresin 2y ago
> He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical. His team of researchers and comedians (ex college humor alumns) do the research and it comes out of his off-putting mouth and face.
gosub100 2y ago
Not to worry, they'll turn political again in a few weeks when every single negative event in the world will be blamed on the president.

dec0dedab0de 2y ago

I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed to directly benefit the police or the government they represent. Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.

sowbug 2y ago
Or destroy the cash in public.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jdubz79 2y ago

We need a database of any cop, lawyer, prosecutor or judge that participates in this type of bullshit. Identify, track, punish! Tyrants have home addresses!

andrewaylett 2y ago

Letting police forces retain any of the proceeds of their activities seems like a really bad idea.

bobbob1921 2y ago

This guy looks familiar from a video on YouTube of the traffic stop and cash seizure. If this in fact is the same guy and case from that video, I wonder what would’ve happened had this not been videotaped / posted online as I’m sure 99% of these similar scenarios are not. Civil forfeiture in the usa really is ridiculous, and I wish it would be radically changed/banned.

ruthmarx 2y ago

And it only took them how long to do this? If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten goods.

kyleblarson 2y ago

It seems especially ironic that this would happen in Nevada, where carrying large amounts of cash is much more normal due to the gambling industry.

honestSysAdmin 2y ago

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

silexia 2y ago

Civil asset forfeiture laws are theft our founders would have fought to the death against. Shut down the federal agencies that are so corrupt they use these to steal from citizens like us.