6 ms·

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

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.
- coldtea 2y ago
  In general, it's pretty messed up that there's an exceptionalism about drug related crime (and some other kinds of crime). Crime is crime. If they don't take custody of a house because some kind of crime X happened there, they shouldn't do it for drug related cases either. They can always arrest the person dealing the drugs and forgeit the drugs themselves.
aqme28 2y ago
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
- potato3732842 2y ago
  It doesn't make sense because it's insane mental gymnastics being used to justify obviously unconstitutional conduct. The bill of rights is very, very, clear on this.
  - braiamp 2y ago
    Nah, it's not. Things sometimes needs to be spelled out so that there's ZERO wiggle room. That's why the universal declaration of human rights had to be so extensive and verbose. There are people that will justify a missing comma as their actions being allowed by the constitution.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The entire point of enumerating rights in a founding document is that it will be at odds with future interests. Of course someone in power is going to try and twist the meaning to their own gain. That inevitable desire is literally why the rights needed to be included in the first place.
      - braiamp 2y ago
        And yet, the US constitution by all metrics is the one lagging behind every other constitution about guaranteeing rights. The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        by which metrics? which other countries? The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a lot of rights
        Supermancho 2y ago
        > The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it. That's what the amendment system is for.
  - andrewaylett 2y ago
thatcat 2y ago
This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.
- krapp 2y ago
  Just don't ask for a "lawyer,dawg" because they don't have one of those. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
coldtea 2y ago
It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the law. Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...
- chipsa 2y ago
  You don’t have an expectation of privacy for the outside of your mail, because people can see the outside. The inside of the mail you do have an expectation of privacy, because someone can’t just see the inside of your mail. Unless it’s smelly, because people have noses.
okamiueru 2y ago
"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"
buran77 2y ago
> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property". Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  Very interesting. So I can walk safetly in the street with a million dollar necklace, but not with $1000 in cash?
  - buran77 2y ago
    As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace around your neck... But you're safe from legal civil forfeiture. Abusive forfeiture is a whole other matter entirely and (IANAL) I'm willing to bet the ones committing the abuse will get the presumption of innocence and you will have to prove the abuse.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace around your neck... It's an easy way of declaring ones badassness. Looking at Mr T, people had to ask themselves, "What kind of person feels confident enough to walk around with that much money on his neck?"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - clifdweller 2y ago
DebtDeflation 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 That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  Even then that would imply some legal personhood on the part of the vessel and it's operations, much like a registered company. To me it's a leap too far to assign it to a specific object. It has no ongoing operations, it's not a fluid, "living" thing. But here we are. This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess I'd hate to see how this modern supreme court rules. Odds are likely to be in favor of keeping this policy, especially if some of that money is used to buy an RV or fund fancy vacations
- lesuorac 2y ago
  But when you fly people who clearly have an owner (themself) to another country and they don't have a passport, the country holds the airline accountable. Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like extend it slightly more to also record the legality.
  - chipsa 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> accusing an inanimate object (the money itself) yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
grajaganDev 2y ago
That is sophistry.
gosub100 2y ago
Then I should be able to sue the police departments property. Gosub100 vs copcar. They can then file a claim to get it back from me.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Sorry bro, qualified immunity was invented by the courts to prevent that.
tart-lemonade 2y ago
SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013). Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest. It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.") Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
- lbschenkel 2y ago
  > Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower. In Brazil we have a problem with the Judiciary too, most of it is completely detached from reality, due to these exact same reasons.
phkahler 2y ago
>> 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 That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.

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.

coldtea 2y ago
In general, it's pretty messed up that there's an exceptionalism about drug related crime (and some other kinds of crime). Crime is crime. If they don't take custody of a house because some kind of crime X happened there, they shouldn't do it for drug related cases either. They can always arrest the person dealing the drugs and forgeit the drugs themselves.

aqme28 2y ago

It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."

potato3732842 2y ago
It doesn't make sense because it's insane mental gymnastics being used to justify obviously unconstitutional conduct. The bill of rights is very, very, clear on this.
- braiamp 2y ago
  Nah, it's not. Things sometimes needs to be spelled out so that there's ZERO wiggle room. That's why the universal declaration of human rights had to be so extensive and verbose. There are people that will justify a missing comma as their actions being allowed by the constitution.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The entire point of enumerating rights in a founding document is that it will be at odds with future interests. Of course someone in power is going to try and twist the meaning to their own gain. That inevitable desire is literally why the rights needed to be included in the first place.
    - braiamp 2y ago
      And yet, the US constitution by all metrics is the one lagging behind every other constitution about guaranteeing rights. The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        by which metrics? which other countries? The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a lot of rights
      - Supermancho 2y ago
        > The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it. That's what the amendment system is for.
- andrewaylett 2y ago

thatcat 2y ago

This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.

krapp 2y ago
Just don't ask for a "lawyer,dawg" because they don't have one of those. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...

coldtea 2y ago

It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the law. Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...

chipsa 2y ago
You don’t have an expectation of privacy for the outside of your mail, because people can see the outside. The inside of the mail you do have an expectation of privacy, because someone can’t just see the inside of your mail. Unless it’s smelly, because people have noses.

okamiueru 2y ago

"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"

buran77 2y ago

> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property". Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.

gus_massa 2y ago
Very interesting. So I can walk safetly in the street with a million dollar necklace, but not with $1000 in cash?
- buran77 2y ago
  As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace around your neck... But you're safe from legal civil forfeiture. Abusive forfeiture is a whole other matter entirely and (IANAL) I'm willing to bet the ones committing the abuse will get the presumption of innocence and you will have to prove the abuse.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace around your neck... It's an easy way of declaring ones badassness. Looking at Mr T, people had to ask themselves, "What kind of person feels confident enough to walk around with that much money on his neck?"
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- clifdweller 2y ago

DebtDeflation 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 That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.

KoolKat23 2y ago
Even then that would imply some legal personhood on the part of the vessel and it's operations, much like a registered company. To me it's a leap too far to assign it to a specific object. It has no ongoing operations, it's not a fluid, "living" thing. But here we are. This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess.
- dylan604 2y ago
  > This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess I'd hate to see how this modern supreme court rules. Odds are likely to be in favor of keeping this policy, especially if some of that money is used to buy an RV or fund fancy vacations
lesuorac 2y ago
But when you fly people who clearly have an owner (themself) to another country and they don't have a passport, the country holds the airline accountable. Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like extend it slightly more to also record the legality.
- chipsa 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> accusing an inanimate object (the money itself) yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.

grajaganDev 2y ago

That is sophistry.

gosub100 2y ago

Then I should be able to sue the police departments property. Gosub100 vs copcar. They can then file a claim to get it back from me.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Sorry bro, qualified immunity was invented by the courts to prevent that.

tart-lemonade 2y ago

SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013). Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest. It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.") Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.

lbschenkel 2y ago
> Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower. In Brazil we have a problem with the Judiciary too, most of it is completely detached from reality, due to these exact same reasons.

phkahler 2y ago

>> 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 That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.