3 ms·
A major nitpick here. The contents of the safe deposit boxes were seized __without__ warrant -- which the warrant did not include. Once they had her money the
by bb88 2y ago
A major nitpick here. The contents of the safe deposit boxes were seized __without__ warrant -- which the warrant did not include. Once they had her money the FBI argued it was civil asset forfeiture.
USPV may have been a criminal organization, but if you enter into a contract with such a group, typically you wouldn't know it's a criminal organization.
I guess you could call up the FBI and say, "Hey I'm going to open a safe deposit box account with USPV. Are you guys actively investigating them?" And if you do that, they will probably not answer you if there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y agoOh there's lots of nits to pick on this case and the 9th Circuit dug into some of it. The original warrant stated that it was for "inventorying" the contents for the purposes of an investigation (preserving evidence). They grossly exceeded the scope fo the warrant and now have to deal with 17 lawsuits if I remember correctly. I abhor civil asset forfeiture as it is set up today. I remember all the fights over it in 1980s over the drug lords, but it had a lot of public support back then and it still does to some extent. Personal anecdote: I almost had several thousand in cash seized on I-70 in Ohio. It's legal but grey and it happens. Good luck getting your cash back. Only thing that saved my money (actually my grandfathers estate... I was selling his vintage stereo gear in Kentucky) was me being white, not sketchy, and being active military. But only barely. There may or may not been a $100 that got miscounted.