16 ms·

Taken

468 points by zt 13y ago

noir_lord 13y ago
They can take your property based on nothing more than probably cause. It's a good job that American Law Enforcement has shown itself over and over again to not abuse the powers granted to it then.
arjn 13y ago
It seems every day we hear about things in the US getting worse for the average citizen. Is it a case that it was always like this and we're only just finding out or are these more recent happenings ?
- krstck 13y ago
  I suspect the former. Still, it is good to call attention to these things.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  A few things to consider: 1. Internet makes small town news national news in a heartbeat if outrageous enough. 2. Currently it is a perfect storm for law enforcement - there is a decade of visible overreach, NSA, TSA, general tiredness of war on drugs and the lost wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on "using war for almost any government effort, republicans hate everything government related because Obama is in office, democrats are disillusioned with him on civil rights and there is global demand for that kind of stories and the journalists supply. So maybe the first.
- geuis 13y ago
  Things are getting worse. This is not the country I expected to grow up into. People here grumble a lot but don't do anything about it. Most people are only passingly aware of things like government spying, police excesses, etc. Except when it happens to them. All I can hope is that it gets bad enough that enough people collectively say "Enough" and things get better again. It's a long road.
  - rocky1138 13y ago
    "If there was hope, it must lie in the Proles..."
    - geuis 13y ago
      I feel like I should know that. Where is it from?
      - jfb 13y ago
        1984
      - kaoD 13y ago
        1984
    - john_b 13y ago
      Unfortunately, that is still an apt observation, and I imagine that most government agencies are well aware of this. People in general just don't protest when intangible, abstract things are stolen from them. Most people who are up in arms about the privacy and other rights violations of the past decade are highly educated, mild mannered, and small in numbers. If there was a decade long shortage of clean water, if unemployment was > 30%, or if the FCC outlawed reality television [1], then people might lose it and demand change. But the intangible theft of one's rights in a (presently) nonviolent way just doesn't register on the radar for most people. [1] Unless it was "to protect the children" of course.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > Things are getting worse. I can see why you might feel that way but, in the long-term big picture, no, they're really not. There was a time when law enforcement wasn't required to recognize your right to be silent, for example, and most of the civil rights advances of the sixties still hold. Civil forfeiture is dangerous and relatively new, but there was plenty of dangerous stuff back in the day. Now, the fact that things could be a lot worse is depressing in a whole different way...
  - 13y ago
- incision 13y ago
  >"Is it a case that it was always like this and we're only just finding out or are these more recent happenings ?" As I related a few days ago, it has always been this way for some of us [0]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142519
  - mcguire 13y ago
    Rubber hose jokes and Strange Fruit did not come from nowhere.
- gyepi 13y ago
  The "badness" is unevenly distributed. Well educated people with money tend not to have to deal with most of it. And can usually afford to make it go away when they do. Cops also tend not to bother them as much. I have a personal interest in "poor people's" issues, my wife works with a poor "population" and I live in an area with concerns about social justice so I'm a little more aware of it. The poor are different from you and me and it's not just because they have less money.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    It's very unevenly distributed: dealing with it is a way of life for African Americans and Hispanics. But you can certainly be screwed over by corrupt or, worse, power-hungry police even when you're a well-to-do straight white male.
- rayiner 13y ago
  In the 1950's and 1960's, if you weren't white they wouldn't even pretend to give you a fair trial. The 4th amendment has been a fiction for probably two decades now in New York for non-whites. It's always been at least this bad, and in fact it's probably better now than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. The difference now is: 1) Stories about this sort of thing are becoming well-known thanks to the internet; 2) Police are starting to mess with white people.
secstate 13y ago
I wonder what the average citizen can do about this? I feel awful for these folks, and wish more people could become educated about their civil rights when faced with the legal system. EDIT: Sounds like the ACLU (+1) already followed through with the embarrassment that was Tenaha, Texas. But it makes you throw up a little to hear the Wash. D.C. attorney general try to justify the importance of ill-gotten funds to prop up corrupt police :(
- pearjuice 13y ago
  >the average citizen Absolutely nothing. Learn to deal with it, because this is the future.
  - wmeredith 13y ago
    Ugh. Malaise like this that is the real evil we must be wary of, not individual acts like the one detailed in this story. The cops were abusing their power and it went on until someone stuck up for themselves, rather than "learning to deal with it". You see how that works? They sued them and won. The ACLU, who brought the case, is made up of average citizens. They put their pants on one leg at a time like you and I, as does their donor base. Any average citizen can call and write representatives; they can spread their thoughts via word of mouth, social media, and traditional media; they can vote with their dollar by supporting groups like the ACLU, the EFF, the NRA, and others that are professionally taking up the fight for their particular flavor of civil liberty. It's never been easier to do stuff like this, thanks to the miracle of modern communications technology. I could pursue all avenues noted above this afternoon and be done with it if I just had the will (the way is literally at our fingertips). Throwing up hands and saying, "deal with it" sure is easy; it's what bullies and opportunists count on to continue taking more and creating less. The freedoms we have didn't happen on accident. They are not being eroded by irresistible laws of nature. They are under attack by people. They always have been and they always will be. That is the future, the present and the past. It's a long, hard fight. We've opted out of the food chain, it's not tooth and nail anymore in 1st world countries, but there's a constant battle of wits and wills. There are no silver bullets, it's a group effort on our side and "theirs". You should join in and pick a side (there are many to choose from). Fight back. It's not easy, but the rewards are as high as the costs. You'll never look back on your life and think, "Gee, I wish I'd spent more time not getting involved in things I cared about." And you'll never have to let someone look you in the eye and say you're a wimp, you didn't try, and you _don't_ count.
pje 13y ago
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
- squozzer 13y ago
  Good use of the word approximately.
mratzloff 13y ago
Interesting article. Here's the conclusion, from Wikipedia: "In late 2012, the ACLU announced a settlement in the case, under which police must now observe rigorous rules during traffic stops in Tenaha and Shelby County: traffic stops will be videotaped, and the officer must give reason for the stop and for suspicion of criminal activity. Drivers are to be advised that they can refuse a search, and dogs will no longer be used in conducting traffic stops. Property determined to have been taken improperly must be returned within 30 business days. Also, asset forfeiture revenue from traffic stops must be donated to non-profit organizations, or used to pay for the officer training required by the settlement." For once, the good guys won, although (like usual) no one was charged criminally in connection with it.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  Also, how many other towns have a similar operation ongoing?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    A lot of them. http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu...
- ceol 13y ago
  Everyone should donate to the ACLU, but try to give them a PO Box or something; their donation calls have crossed the line into "frustratingly annoying" more than once.
  - jeremybencken 13y ago
    And Institute for Justice. They fight more of these on a pro bono basis than the ACLU does. http://www.ij.org/executive-summary-2 http://www.ij.org/executive-summary-2
    - temp453463343 13y ago
kelvin0 13y ago
Say what you will, but at least most US citizens have cheap access to quality medical services. You can also buy as many guns as you like or sell them to known criminals, how sweet is that?
- geuis 13y ago
  Cheap access? Are you insane? Health insurance is incredibly expensive. Even with it, medical costs are through the roof. My ex girlfriend was pregnant with our kid 7-8 years ago and she miscarried. After the hospital procedures and one night stay, the bill was over $32k dollars. Great, we lost our kid and are now more in debt than what we both spent on college. Not a fun time in life.
  - ultimatedelman 13y ago
    easy there, he's clearly being sarcastic.
    - kelvin0 13y ago
      Indeed
  - kelvin0 13y ago
    Yeah, as I parent I empathize. It must have been a trying experience both emotionally and financially. But I has being sarcastic in my comment earlier...
- hga 13y ago
  It's of course a felony to sell a gun to a known criminal. Sure, we do that a lot easier in the US because the people are actually allowed to own guns, but I don't think that was the point you were making.
  - kelvin0 13y ago
    No, of course. But some of the busiest (sell the most) gun shops in the US are known to sell a copious amount of guns that are implicated in many criminal activities. Law enforcement knows this because they could trace the gun back (that's with what they can trace). Now law enforcement knows this, the gun dealer also knows this and the gun manufacturer also keeps tabs on it's biggest dealers. The incentive here is to make money, and nothing else. It's funny that while guns are sold and used in actual crimes the Police in that town are too busy 'cashing' in on poor unsuspected (allegedly non-criminal) citizens. Awesome!
jfb 13y ago
This has been an ugly and shameful aspect of the "War on Drugs" since day one. I like that people are surprised that if you create an incentive structure, it encourages a specific behavior. Well, no kidding -- if law enforcement funding is dependent on civil forfeiture, civil forfeiture goes up. You can get the good of the forfeiture (expeditious seizure) without the perverse actions by decoupling the proceeds. More training isn't going to work on its own.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Exactly. Wherever perverse incentives exist, exploitation will inevitably follow. Just imagine how much better this country could be on all levels if we eagerly stamped out these types of perverse incentives. It wouldn't even take a huge overhaul of the government: simply don't allow people to benefit from their own position of power. Such a simple concept, yet we keep moving in the exact opposite direction. Casually, it seems like this trend can be traced to our need for "efficiency", and the proliferation of business concepts into government and public institutions. Incentivize behavior that you want and you'll get more of it, etc. Makes sense in business contexts, but in public services it is detrimental.
speakr 13y ago
Anyone else noticed that the article was written next week?
- thehigherlife 13y ago
  When the New Yorker publishes an article it always uses the date for the print magazine.
  - speakr 13y ago
    Ah, thanks.
john_b 13y ago
> "Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car. The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station." The article doesn't say it outright, but does imply that they consented to the police search. Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, should you do this. Even if you "have nothing to hide." These two thought they had nothing to hide too. But what you think doesn't matter when the officer's opinion on what is "suspicious" is all that matters. There is nothing whatsoever for you to gain from agreeing to a search of your property. Don't give them probable cause and make them get a warrant. If you agree to a search you might as well hand your rights over at the same time. Depending on the officer(s) to exercise sound judgment and restraint when they have little to no incentive to do so is simply foolish.
- jfb 13y ago
  Without passing judgement on the advice, it doesn't sound to me like the cops in Tehana were going to be scrupulous about respecting the rights of the people they were stopping.
  - marvin 13y ago
    Surrely surreptiously recording the incident while repeatedly saying "I do not consent to this search" must provide some leverage when it comes to court.
    - jffry 13y ago
      Only if it is legal to do so. In some states, recordings require the knowledge and consent of both parties.
      - dangrossman 13y ago
        There are only two states where there's any question about the legality of recording police officers in public without permission. The laws you're thinking of only require consent to record private conversations, and an interaction with a police officer on a public road is not private. http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-...
jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
For people who haven't been in Texas lately, particularly south Texas... this isn't unusual or an exaggeration. It really is that bad.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  I dread seeing a cop on the highway when driving from Houston to Dallas and back, and I'm a law-abiding college graduate. The drug war is not being kind to the relationship between civilians and law enforcement here.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
    Yup, even if you're totally innocent you can be held in jail for 3 days if a cop decides they don't like you. Once you get before a judge, the pretext charges are dropped and you're free to go. This happened to a friend. At that point you can counter-sue and you would eventually win, but not without a potentially expensive legal battle. Organizations like the ACLU can only work so many case, so they're pretty ruthless about prioritizing the ones likely to make a media impact. The worst thing is you can't avoid the police in Texas if you need to drive for work/life. There are mandatory immigration checkpoints miles away from the border. Everyone is stopped and questioned. It's not just Texas. I was illegally detained and had my car searched despite refusing on the interstate in KS. But it seems to get progressively worse the closer you get to the border with Mexico.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >Yup, even if you're totally innocent you can be held in jail for 3 days if a cop decides they don't like you. Yup. Happened to an acquaintance who was in town for a charity event. He was arrested in Fort Worth, and when we tried to post bond for him, the jailers "couldn't find" him. Went on for 3 days. The ironic part was that the guy was a prosecutor (from Mass.) See also: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/12/tarrant-county-bail-politics-keeps.html http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/12/tarrant-county...
  - 13y ago
bluedino 13y ago
I have no problem with this being done with legitimate drug dealers. A real bust, where the cops are shown standing behind a table with a half of a million in cash stacked on the table, a small arsenal of firearms, and couple kilos of drugs on the table. They auction off the house and luxury cars and the expensive electronics etc inside. But taking someones car because they were driving it while buying $10 of pot? Absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure with a lawyer you can get your car back and charges dropped but if you don't have the money for that, it's simply not fair to take someone's vehicle for recreational drug use. There's no arguing that it's against the law but you don't get your vehicle taken away for speeding or driving away in it while shoplifting or writing a bad check. What's the difference?
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I honestly can't tell if you've RTFA. The main victims described in the article were carrying no drugs. Makes it all the more shocking. > I have no problem with this being done with legitimate drug dealers. Yes, well, that is the point of the War on Drugs, yes? And yet........
- argumentum 13y ago
  You're missing one of the main problems: this creates a perverse profit incentive which, as the article points out, inevitably permeated down from major racketeers to ordinary citizens. If anything, the confiscated property should be turned over for neutral causes such as financing education or healthcare etc. Not that I agree with that either, but it removes the existing incentives for corrupt authorities.
- patmcguire 13y ago
  If you do a bust with half a million dollars and a stash of drugs and guns, it should be quite easy to show the cash is criminal. You don't need a lesser standard.
speeder 13y ago
I wonder that when (it is a when, not a if) several someones consider a cop a intruder and kill it, people will start to wake up that things are getting too far.
mathattack 13y ago
Wow - this is amazing, "Can it really be happening in the US?" corruption. Is this also an offshoot of a no tax policy in Texas?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  "Can it really be happening in the US?" I hate to tell you this, but as a non-American I've always had the idea that rural cops and sheriffs are likely to be corrupt in this manner, especially 'good old boys.' I don't mean that as a slur on rural people and think there's urban corruption too but it takes different forms there because of population density v. isolation. Is this also an offshoot of a no tax policy in Texas? In both Texas and DC, I think it's very much a side effect of politicians' unwillingness to raise taxes. There's a vicious circle of ever-increasing pension obligations, stagnant revenue, and voter apathy that allows this and other sorts of corruption to flourish. Most people are not that interested in politics, but they get annoyed when their taxes change (hell, I'm liberal and I get annoyed about my taxes). It's one of the few issues that can mobilize a majority of voters. In this political calculus, corruption has a lower cost because although the effects are more severe, they're not as widely distributed.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    My impression is this happens in Russia a lot. They can't afford to pay the police, so the police find a way to prey on the weak. It's a sign that underfunding is getting extreme.
noonespecial 13y ago
Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Trolling seems to have become the 21st century's biggest problem facing the "rule of law". I suppose once law became expensive relative to the median income, it was inevitable, but it really seems to have become the dominant emergent behavior of today's unsavories nearly overnight.
frankblizzard 13y ago
I feel sorry for the honest and good american people that have to suffer from this power abuse, which seems to be a very real and common threat. It must be horrible to live in constant fear from your own government. :(
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Governments. The reason it's so hard to weed out this sort of thing is that the business of government is so fragmented in the US due to both geographic and historical factors. I have separate and distinct relationships with the city I live in, the county that city is in, the state, and the federal government, plus quasi-governmental organizations like some utilities providers, intergovernment groups and so on.
clarkmoody 13y ago
"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses..."
kghose 13y ago
This article just made me angry. Very, very angry. I'm inspired that there are lawyers who have the patience and determination to counter the cynicism and corruption of some police and government departments in the country.
eldude 13y ago
The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side, failing to realize that their own side is equally responsible. I see a lot of people declaring, "This is not the country it used to be," but it's in regards to both PRISM, civil forfeiture, and the Patriot Act; and Obamacare, FHA Loans, and Welfare. The true problem though is government, both altogether and the increase in the Federal government at the expense of local or State governments. Both the Democratic and Republican parties stand only to lose power by embracing either libertarian or state values. Consequently, a party that weakens itself with its own values, will always fail against a party that strengthens itself. Additionally, when the backlash from Bush's increase in government became too severe on the right, Obama stepped in to increase the size and reach of the government on the left. Until Democrats and Republicans acknowledge this, the political system will continue to use us against each other to enrich themselves and rob us of our liberties. This is the issue of our generation: the gross overreach of government institutionalized by politicians pitting opposing mass ideologies against each other while empowering themselves. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever surrender their party values for fear the other will abuse the opportunity to seize more power. We need a pro-state or libertarian party. I suspect a pro-state party would generate far greater support, likely because it is part of our historical/constitutional DNA. EDIT: Sorry for the seemingly tenuous relation to the article. The reason this relates is that all of the justification given by local law enforcement for violating our for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were Federal precedents and Executive Orders. In other words when the Federal government consistently violates federal (constitutional) laws, local governments are emboldened to do the same. Additionally, the size and power of the federal government itself emboldens it to violate its own (constitutional) accountabilities to the people.
- apalmer 13y ago
  I like some of your platform, but your post seems to be completely unrelated to the article. If anything this specific article details story of very widespread scale corruption among state and municipal government.
  - gbhn 13y ago
    Yes. Stories like this are a root cause for why people often welcome federal law enforcement -- the centers of federal enforcement may be vulnerable to other forms of coercion, but they are outside the reach of whatever racket is currently corrupting local law enforcement.
BWStearns 13y ago
IIRC it is the legislative branch of the government that is responsible for raising funds. So when I see this defense "It’s definitely a valuable asset to law enforcement, for purchasing equipment and getting things you normally wouldn’t be able to get to fight crime" I get concerned. There is a very good reason that those with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force are not intended to self-finance.
smrtinsert 13y ago
State rankings: http://www.ij.org/part-ii-grading-the-states-2 http://www.ij.org/part-ii-grading-the-states-2
mkramlich 13y ago
completely off-topic for HN -- and yet 151 points. please somebody save this site. it's spiralling out of control. pg, please
- icebraining 13y ago
  In China, toddler left for dead sparks debate about society's moral health (654 days ago) Alabama Town’s Failed Pension Is Warning to Cities and States (956 days ago) More Struggling Borrowers Face Pay Garnishment (1221 days ago) Millions of Unemployed Face Years without Jobs (1260 days ago) All submitted by pg himself over the years. How is this story so different?
  - derefr 13y ago
    The latter three articles are economics pieces, which tend to spark good, scientifically-minded debates on HN. The first article is political, and I would hope that pg would think better than to post if he was given the same decision over again. It probably felt "less dangerous" to post it two years ago; back then, HN didn't have nearly so many people interested in discussing the political side of an issue--you know, the people you see in this thread :)
    - icebraining 13y ago
      What about Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks, Get a Visit from the Feds (4 days ago)? It's very much a political article, even if it include a technical side. We all know what would be discussed.
- bradbatt 13y ago
  I keep seeing a small contention on HN say things like this, but there aren't hundreds of political posts — just a few here and there. The ones that do get posted are usually investigative, well-researched, interesting and important articles like this one. To me, the biggest value of sites like HN is always the comments. Here we have some of the brightest, smartest, most driven people around the world gathered together. I think it's interesting to see what others think about things like this. I don't want a political discussion every day, but reading comments on important subjects like civil forfeiture from really, really smart people is interesting and informative. It's likely that many on HN today will have a big impact in shaping our lives in many ways over the next decade and beyond — not just from a technology standpoint. I for one, don't mind the occasional off-topic post that provokes interesting and thoughtful discussion. (And BTW — this is my 2nd account, which I created in order to use my real name — my original account is 4 years old)
mmaunder 13y ago
At DefCon 2013 on Friday the ACLU described a disturbing trend of local law enforcement emulating the feds in their overstepping the boundaries of our civil liberties. The ACLU and EFF are doing great work - particularly the ACLU and I strongly recommend you become a member or give them an anonymous donation if you'd like to help fight stories like this. https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give PS: I'd like to see a kickstarter for dashcams that stream in real-time so even if they're seized the record persists.
- jaxbot 13y ago
  +1 to the Kickstarter, or any product reco. I suppose even having an audio recorder that streams from your phone to a server would be trivial, and very valuable.
  - e12e 13y ago
    This should be pretty easy to set up with a cheap android phone, and some server software. Having it mounted in the vehicle means no need to worry about battery power; the only hard part is how to deal with spotty/poor/low bandwidth reception. Unfortunately sat phones are still expensive for this sort of thing, although I suppose it might be feasible to do low-frame rate black and white shots.
    - greedo 13y ago
      Streaming video, even compressed will eat up your data plan pretty quickly.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  http://dashcamtalk.com/ http://dashcamtalk.com/
Gravityloss 13y ago
This is slightly off topic, but I find the writing style in the article odd, though this kind of writing is common in supposedly good newspapers and magazines with long winded stories: "Outraged by their experience in Tenaha, Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson helped to launch a class-action lawsuit challenging the abuse of a legal doctrine known as civil-asset forfeiture. “Have you looked it up?” Boatright asked me when I met her this spring at Houston’s H&H Saloon, where she runs Steak Night every Monday. She was standing at a mattress-size grill outside. “It’ll blow your mind.”" What does the grill have to do with this? Why does every story have to have adjective laden filler how the people's hair looks like and where the interviewer meets them?
- gyepi 13y ago
  Discussing the grill serves to provide a context for their meeting and to establish character, in this case, by describing what she does. I imagine most American readers can relate to someone who knows their way around a grill; especially a "mattress" sized one. It's called Litery Journalism. As I recall, Gay Talese and Joan Didion, among others, helped to popularize it.
- danso 13y ago
  A. Because it shows the reporter was there and actually met the subjects. B. Because it's a way to draw the reader into a story through imagery, before exploring the legal/technical details. Adjective-laden writing is the mark of an amateur. However, in the passage you're objecting to, there doesn't seem to be a single adjective in there.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
The apotheosis of the ridiculousness of forfeiture exists in the case "United States vs. $124,700 in US Currency": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... In this case a large amount of money was taken into custody by the Nebraska State Police. It was found guilty of being the proceeds of illegal drug sales and confiscated by the state under asset forfeiture. The human being who had previously been in possession of this currency was neither convicted of nor charged with any drug crime. The US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the defendant currency. I wish I was making this shit up.
- rosser 13y ago
  I don't know, I think State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix might be a little closer to the apotheosis of this nonsense... It's at least conceivable how $125k USD could have been involved in The Drugs. But a crucifix?
ohashi 13y ago
I noticed it was published in the future (August 13, 2013). I wonder how that happened?
mschuster91 13y ago
Oh god, is this really happening? The US devolve more and more into a totalitarian regime, from an European viewpoint. Makes me worried for the poor (literally) people in the US. We in Germany have at least the "Prozesskostenbeihilfe" and mandatory attorneys as soon as you're arrested. Compared to this, US system looks like 3rd world and it's sick to see this happening.
- david927 13y ago
  People never live in today, but in the afterimages from different times in the past. Your friend from college has changed; that little town you visited near Prague years ago is quite different now. The America most people see in their mind is the one of decades ago; it's not the America of today. The America of today is quite poor, with around 40% making below the minimum wage of 1968. While there's still a lot of wealth there, it's heavily concentrated into the hands of a few, as is typical in second-world and third-world countries. And it's difficult to reconcile that image with the one in our minds.
  - brianlweiner 13y ago
    Do you actually believe that 40% of America live in worst conditions than 1968?
    - sophacles 13y ago
      Do you have any evidence to the contrary. Other than TV technology improving? I mean, aside from some consumer goods, what hasn't gone up in price out of proportion with wages?
    - jbooth 13y ago
      That wasn't what he said, though, was it? If you assume he meant inflation adjusted dollars, what he said was objectively correct. You can draw your own conclusions.
qq66 13y ago
I hope that some business model survives to ensure the production of long-form journalism like this. I fear the longer-term effects on society if journalism like this disappears in lieu of purely user-generated content or blog posts that earn $50 for the author.
donaldc 13y ago
Sounds like unreasonable seizure to me. The search didn't sound all that reasonable either.
azernik 13y ago
“What stands out to me is the nature of how pervasive and dependent police really are on civil-asset forfeiture—it’s their bread and butter—and, therefore, how difficult it is to engage in systemic reform,” Vanita Gupta, of the A.C.L.U., says. What is this, some medieval state? Are the local lords so unable to fund themselves through taxes that they extort passing travellers?
- scotty79 13y ago
  People never change. They are just becoming more so.
- seszett 13y ago
  That is exactly what I was thinking. This whole thing just looks like what used to happen in medieval times, with military forces living on the money of commoners, local communities extorting money from travellers, laws and law enforcement practices being different from one county to another... I don't understand how a modern country could come back to this situation.
wisty 13y ago
Later in the article, it gets even worse. And old couple had their house taken, because their son had sold a small quantity of marijuana from their porch.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
Well, we wanted privatized services, right?
steveax 13y ago
I'm surprised that nobody (not even the article) has mentioned the militarization of police as a symbiotic factor. Surely the desire for SWAT units (and all the fancy toys that go along with them) fuels this practice -- and in return, the practice fuels the growth of police militarization.
- danso 13y ago
  FWIW, the OP does allude to the militarization of the police when describing the violence used in their cash-grabs: > In the midst of festivities one evening in late May, 2008, forty-odd officers in black commando gear stormed the gallery and its rear patio, ordering the guests to the ground. Some in attendance thought that they were the victims of an armed robbery. One young woman who had fallen only to her knees told me that a masked figure screamed at her, “Bitch, you think you’re too pretty to get in the mud?” A boot from behind kicked her to the ground" While the militarization of police is a huge issue, it's one that is orthogonal to the one the OP tackles. A system in which police can confiscate property -- with very low risk of being called out for it -- and share a cut of the seized goods (with the prosecutors) will quickly lead to a very bad situation. It doesn't matter if the money goes to buying more commando gear or towards a prosecutor's vacation home.
api 13y ago
Combine this with the DEA / NSA data sharing and you have a recipe for the devastating financial harassment of dissidents. At this point the USA is not far from Putin's Russia in terms of totalitarianism and corruption.
mcv 13y ago
If there was ever any remote chance of me visiting the US, this definitely kills the last remains of it. Please, please fix your country. (Because I really do want to visit. Just not while it's this broken.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chflamplighter 13y ago
America is a Business and not a country. Profit motive will always rule; good for managing a business in most cases, bad for managing a society in all cases.
MichaelGG 13y ago
"The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing." No, no it's not. It's flawed and messed up intrinsically. The fact that even a story covering this would say something to the effect of it's OK just abused... sigh.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
The article mentions Barry Washington, but I suspect that may be a mistake[1], and that they may be referring to Barry Cooper who after years of making lots of dodgy drug arrests and training other LE officers the same; infamously changed sides and now sells DVDs to the public that teach how to avoid "getting busted" http://www.texasobserver.org/gone-rogue/ http://www.texasobserver.org/gone-rogue/ [1] edit: I'm the one who is mistaken, see frogpelt below. Leaving it up because I think it adds more to the conversation regarding the practice of police work as it relates to drugs and property seizure.
- frogpelt 13y ago
  From the article you linked: "Cooper says one mentor was Barry Washington, who is named in a class-action lawsuit that’s been filed against the city of Tenaha, Texas."
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Rats, I should have read that more carefully! Thanks for catching it.

468 points by zt 13y ago

They can take your property based on nothing more than probably cause. It's a good job that American Law Enforcement has shown itself over and over again to not abuse the powers granted to it then.

arjn 13y ago

It seems every day we hear about things in the US getting worse for the average citizen. Is it a case that it was always like this and we're only just finding out or are these more recent happenings ?

krstck 13y ago
I suspect the former. Still, it is good to call attention to these things.
venomsnake 13y ago
A few things to consider: 1. Internet makes small town news national news in a heartbeat if outrageous enough. 2. Currently it is a perfect storm for law enforcement - there is a decade of visible overreach, NSA, TSA, general tiredness of war on drugs and the lost wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on "using war for almost any government effort, republicans hate everything government related because Obama is in office, democrats are disillusioned with him on civil rights and there is global demand for that kind of stories and the journalists supply. So maybe the first.
geuis 13y ago
Things are getting worse. This is not the country I expected to grow up into. People here grumble a lot but don't do anything about it. Most people are only passingly aware of things like government spying, police excesses, etc. Except when it happens to them. All I can hope is that it gets bad enough that enough people collectively say "Enough" and things get better again. It's a long road.
- rocky1138 13y ago
  "If there was hope, it must lie in the Proles..."
  - geuis 13y ago
    I feel like I should know that. Where is it from?
    - jfb 13y ago
      1984
    - kaoD 13y ago
      1984
  - john_b 13y ago
    Unfortunately, that is still an apt observation, and I imagine that most government agencies are well aware of this. People in general just don't protest when intangible, abstract things are stolen from them. Most people who are up in arms about the privacy and other rights violations of the past decade are highly educated, mild mannered, and small in numbers. If there was a decade long shortage of clean water, if unemployment was > 30%, or if the FCC outlawed reality television [1], then people might lose it and demand change. But the intangible theft of one's rights in a (presently) nonviolent way just doesn't register on the radar for most people. [1] Unless it was "to protect the children" of course.
- justin66 13y ago
  > Things are getting worse. I can see why you might feel that way but, in the long-term big picture, no, they're really not. There was a time when law enforcement wasn't required to recognize your right to be silent, for example, and most of the civil rights advances of the sixties still hold. Civil forfeiture is dangerous and relatively new, but there was plenty of dangerous stuff back in the day. Now, the fact that things could be a lot worse is depressing in a whole different way...
- 13y ago
incision 13y ago
>"Is it a case that it was always like this and we're only just finding out or are these more recent happenings ?" As I related a few days ago, it has always been this way for some of us [0]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142519
- mcguire 13y ago
  Rubber hose jokes and Strange Fruit did not come from nowhere.
gyepi 13y ago
The "badness" is unevenly distributed. Well educated people with money tend not to have to deal with most of it. And can usually afford to make it go away when they do. Cops also tend not to bother them as much. I have a personal interest in "poor people's" issues, my wife works with a poor "population" and I live in an area with concerns about social justice so I'm a little more aware of it. The poor are different from you and me and it's not just because they have less money.
- scarmig 13y ago
  It's very unevenly distributed: dealing with it is a way of life for African Americans and Hispanics. But you can certainly be screwed over by corrupt or, worse, power-hungry police even when you're a well-to-do straight white male.
rayiner 13y ago
In the 1950's and 1960's, if you weren't white they wouldn't even pretend to give you a fair trial. The 4th amendment has been a fiction for probably two decades now in New York for non-whites. It's always been at least this bad, and in fact it's probably better now than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. The difference now is: 1) Stories about this sort of thing are becoming well-known thanks to the internet; 2) Police are starting to mess with white people.

secstate 13y ago

I wonder what the average citizen can do about this? I feel awful for these folks, and wish more people could become educated about their civil rights when faced with the legal system. EDIT: Sounds like the ACLU (+1) already followed through with the embarrassment that was Tenaha, Texas. But it makes you throw up a little to hear the Wash. D.C. attorney general try to justify the importance of ill-gotten funds to prop up corrupt police :(

pearjuice 13y ago
>the average citizen Absolutely nothing. Learn to deal with it, because this is the future.
- wmeredith 13y ago
  Ugh. Malaise like this that is the real evil we must be wary of, not individual acts like the one detailed in this story. The cops were abusing their power and it went on until someone stuck up for themselves, rather than "learning to deal with it". You see how that works? They sued them and won. The ACLU, who brought the case, is made up of average citizens. They put their pants on one leg at a time like you and I, as does their donor base. Any average citizen can call and write representatives; they can spread their thoughts via word of mouth, social media, and traditional media; they can vote with their dollar by supporting groups like the ACLU, the EFF, the NRA, and others that are professionally taking up the fight for their particular flavor of civil liberty. It's never been easier to do stuff like this, thanks to the miracle of modern communications technology. I could pursue all avenues noted above this afternoon and be done with it if I just had the will (the way is literally at our fingertips). Throwing up hands and saying, "deal with it" sure is easy; it's what bullies and opportunists count on to continue taking more and creating less. The freedoms we have didn't happen on accident. They are not being eroded by irresistible laws of nature. They are under attack by people. They always have been and they always will be. That is the future, the present and the past. It's a long, hard fight. We've opted out of the food chain, it's not tooth and nail anymore in 1st world countries, but there's a constant battle of wits and wills. There are no silver bullets, it's a group effort on our side and "theirs". You should join in and pick a side (there are many to choose from). Fight back. It's not easy, but the rewards are as high as the costs. You'll never look back on your life and think, "Gee, I wish I'd spent more time not getting involved in things I cared about." And you'll never have to let someone look you in the eye and say you're a wimp, you didn't try, and you _don't_ count.

pje 13y ago

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

squozzer 13y ago
Good use of the word approximately.

mratzloff 13y ago

Interesting article. Here's the conclusion, from Wikipedia: "In late 2012, the ACLU announced a settlement in the case, under which police must now observe rigorous rules during traffic stops in Tenaha and Shelby County: traffic stops will be videotaped, and the officer must give reason for the stop and for suspicion of criminal activity. Drivers are to be advised that they can refuse a search, and dogs will no longer be used in conducting traffic stops. Property determined to have been taken improperly must be returned within 30 business days. Also, asset forfeiture revenue from traffic stops must be donated to non-profit organizations, or used to pay for the officer training required by the settlement." For once, the good guys won, although (like usual) no one was charged criminally in connection with it.

redblacktree 13y ago
Also, how many other towns have a similar operation ongoing?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  A lot of them. http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu...
ceol 13y ago
Everyone should donate to the ACLU, but try to give them a PO Box or something; their donation calls have crossed the line into "frustratingly annoying" more than once.
- jeremybencken 13y ago
  And Institute for Justice. They fight more of these on a pro bono basis than the ACLU does. http://www.ij.org/executive-summary-2 http://www.ij.org/executive-summary-2
  - temp453463343 13y ago

kelvin0 13y ago

Say what you will, but at least most US citizens have cheap access to quality medical services. You can also buy as many guns as you like or sell them to known criminals, how sweet is that?

geuis 13y ago
Cheap access? Are you insane? Health insurance is incredibly expensive. Even with it, medical costs are through the roof. My ex girlfriend was pregnant with our kid 7-8 years ago and she miscarried. After the hospital procedures and one night stay, the bill was over $32k dollars. Great, we lost our kid and are now more in debt than what we both spent on college. Not a fun time in life.
- ultimatedelman 13y ago
  easy there, he's clearly being sarcastic.
  - kelvin0 13y ago
    Indeed
- kelvin0 13y ago
  Yeah, as I parent I empathize. It must have been a trying experience both emotionally and financially. But I has being sarcastic in my comment earlier...
hga 13y ago
It's of course a felony to sell a gun to a known criminal. Sure, we do that a lot easier in the US because the people are actually allowed to own guns, but I don't think that was the point you were making.
- kelvin0 13y ago
  No, of course. But some of the busiest (sell the most) gun shops in the US are known to sell a copious amount of guns that are implicated in many criminal activities. Law enforcement knows this because they could trace the gun back (that's with what they can trace). Now law enforcement knows this, the gun dealer also knows this and the gun manufacturer also keeps tabs on it's biggest dealers. The incentive here is to make money, and nothing else. It's funny that while guns are sold and used in actual crimes the Police in that town are too busy 'cashing' in on poor unsuspected (allegedly non-criminal) citizens. Awesome!

jfb 13y ago

This has been an ugly and shameful aspect of the "War on Drugs" since day one. I like that people are surprised that if you create an incentive structure, it encourages a specific behavior. Well, no kidding -- if law enforcement funding is dependent on civil forfeiture, civil forfeiture goes up. You can get the good of the forfeiture (expeditious seizure) without the perverse actions by decoupling the proceeds. More training isn't going to work on its own.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
Exactly. Wherever perverse incentives exist, exploitation will inevitably follow. Just imagine how much better this country could be on all levels if we eagerly stamped out these types of perverse incentives. It wouldn't even take a huge overhaul of the government: simply don't allow people to benefit from their own position of power. Such a simple concept, yet we keep moving in the exact opposite direction. Casually, it seems like this trend can be traced to our need for "efficiency", and the proliferation of business concepts into government and public institutions. Incentivize behavior that you want and you'll get more of it, etc. Makes sense in business contexts, but in public services it is detrimental.

speakr 13y ago

Anyone else noticed that the article was written next week?

thehigherlife 13y ago
When the New Yorker publishes an article it always uses the date for the print magazine.
- speakr 13y ago
  Ah, thanks.

john_b 13y ago

> "Were there any drugs in the car? When Henderson and Boatright said no, the officer asked if he and his partner could search the car. The officers found the couple’s cash and a marbled-glass pipe that Boatright said was a gift for her sister-in-law, and escorted them across town to the police station." The article doesn't say it outright, but does imply that they consented to the police search. Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, should you do this. Even if you "have nothing to hide." These two thought they had nothing to hide too. But what you think doesn't matter when the officer's opinion on what is "suspicious" is all that matters. There is nothing whatsoever for you to gain from agreeing to a search of your property. Don't give them probable cause and make them get a warrant. If you agree to a search you might as well hand your rights over at the same time. Depending on the officer(s) to exercise sound judgment and restraint when they have little to no incentive to do so is simply foolish.

jfb 13y ago
Without passing judgement on the advice, it doesn't sound to me like the cops in Tehana were going to be scrupulous about respecting the rights of the people they were stopping.
- marvin 13y ago
  Surrely surreptiously recording the incident while repeatedly saying "I do not consent to this search" must provide some leverage when it comes to court.
  - jffry 13y ago
    Only if it is legal to do so. In some states, recordings require the knowledge and consent of both parties.
    - dangrossman 13y ago
      There are only two states where there's any question about the legality of recording police officers in public without permission. The laws you're thinking of only require consent to record private conversations, and an interaction with a police officer on a public road is not private. http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-...

jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago

For people who haven't been in Texas lately, particularly south Texas... this isn't unusual or an exaggeration. It really is that bad.

cobrausn 13y ago
I dread seeing a cop on the highway when driving from Houston to Dallas and back, and I'm a law-abiding college graduate. The drug war is not being kind to the relationship between civilians and law enforcement here.
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
  Yup, even if you're totally innocent you can be held in jail for 3 days if a cop decides they don't like you. Once you get before a judge, the pretext charges are dropped and you're free to go. This happened to a friend. At that point you can counter-sue and you would eventually win, but not without a potentially expensive legal battle. Organizations like the ACLU can only work so many case, so they're pretty ruthless about prioritizing the ones likely to make a media impact. The worst thing is you can't avoid the police in Texas if you need to drive for work/life. There are mandatory immigration checkpoints miles away from the border. Everyone is stopped and questioned. It's not just Texas. I was illegally detained and had my car searched despite refusing on the interstate in KS. But it seems to get progressively worse the closer you get to the border with Mexico.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >Yup, even if you're totally innocent you can be held in jail for 3 days if a cop decides they don't like you. Yup. Happened to an acquaintance who was in town for a charity event. He was arrested in Fort Worth, and when we tried to post bond for him, the jailers "couldn't find" him. Went on for 3 days. The ironic part was that the guy was a prosecutor (from Mass.) See also: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/12/tarrant-county-bail-politics-keeps.html http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/12/tarrant-county...
- 13y ago

bluedino 13y ago

I have no problem with this being done with legitimate drug dealers. A real bust, where the cops are shown standing behind a table with a half of a million in cash stacked on the table, a small arsenal of firearms, and couple kilos of drugs on the table. They auction off the house and luxury cars and the expensive electronics etc inside. But taking someones car because they were driving it while buying $10 of pot? Absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure with a lawyer you can get your car back and charges dropped but if you don't have the money for that, it's simply not fair to take someone's vehicle for recreational drug use. There's no arguing that it's against the law but you don't get your vehicle taken away for speeding or driving away in it while shoplifting or writing a bad check. What's the difference?

burntsushi 13y ago
I honestly can't tell if you've RTFA. The main victims described in the article were carrying no drugs. Makes it all the more shocking. > I have no problem with this being done with legitimate drug dealers. Yes, well, that is the point of the War on Drugs, yes? And yet........
argumentum 13y ago
You're missing one of the main problems: this creates a perverse profit incentive which, as the article points out, inevitably permeated down from major racketeers to ordinary citizens. If anything, the confiscated property should be turned over for neutral causes such as financing education or healthcare etc. Not that I agree with that either, but it removes the existing incentives for corrupt authorities.
patmcguire 13y ago
If you do a bust with half a million dollars and a stash of drugs and guns, it should be quite easy to show the cash is criminal. You don't need a lesser standard.

speeder 13y ago

I wonder that when (it is a when, not a if) several someones consider a cop a intruder and kill it, people will start to wake up that things are getting too far.

mathattack 13y ago

Wow - this is amazing, "Can it really be happening in the US?" corruption. Is this also an offshoot of a no tax policy in Texas?

anigbrowl 13y ago
"Can it really be happening in the US?" I hate to tell you this, but as a non-American I've always had the idea that rural cops and sheriffs are likely to be corrupt in this manner, especially 'good old boys.' I don't mean that as a slur on rural people and think there's urban corruption too but it takes different forms there because of population density v. isolation. Is this also an offshoot of a no tax policy in Texas? In both Texas and DC, I think it's very much a side effect of politicians' unwillingness to raise taxes. There's a vicious circle of ever-increasing pension obligations, stagnant revenue, and voter apathy that allows this and other sorts of corruption to flourish. Most people are not that interested in politics, but they get annoyed when their taxes change (hell, I'm liberal and I get annoyed about my taxes). It's one of the few issues that can mobilize a majority of voters. In this political calculus, corruption has a lower cost because although the effects are more severe, they're not as widely distributed.
- mathattack 13y ago
  My impression is this happens in Russia a lot. They can't afford to pay the police, so the police find a way to prey on the weak. It's a sign that underfunding is getting extreme.

noonespecial 13y ago

Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Trolling seems to have become the 21st century's biggest problem facing the "rule of law". I suppose once law became expensive relative to the median income, it was inevitable, but it really seems to have become the dominant emergent behavior of today's unsavories nearly overnight.

frankblizzard 13y ago

I feel sorry for the honest and good american people that have to suffer from this power abuse, which seems to be a very real and common threat. It must be horrible to live in constant fear from your own government. :(

anigbrowl 13y ago
Governments. The reason it's so hard to weed out this sort of thing is that the business of government is so fragmented in the US due to both geographic and historical factors. I have separate and distinct relationships with the city I live in, the county that city is in, the state, and the federal government, plus quasi-governmental organizations like some utilities providers, intergovernment groups and so on.

clarkmoody 13y ago

"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses..."

kghose 13y ago

This article just made me angry. Very, very angry. I'm inspired that there are lawyers who have the patience and determination to counter the cynicism and corruption of some police and government departments in the country.

eldude 13y ago

The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side, failing to realize that their own side is equally responsible. I see a lot of people declaring, "This is not the country it used to be," but it's in regards to both PRISM, civil forfeiture, and the Patriot Act; and Obamacare, FHA Loans, and Welfare. The true problem though is government, both altogether and the increase in the Federal government at the expense of local or State governments. Both the Democratic and Republican parties stand only to lose power by embracing either libertarian or state values. Consequently, a party that weakens itself with its own values, will always fail against a party that strengthens itself. Additionally, when the backlash from Bush's increase in government became too severe on the right, Obama stepped in to increase the size and reach of the government on the left. Until Democrats and Republicans acknowledge this, the political system will continue to use us against each other to enrich themselves and rob us of our liberties. This is the issue of our generation: the gross overreach of government institutionalized by politicians pitting opposing mass ideologies against each other while empowering themselves. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever surrender their party values for fear the other will abuse the opportunity to seize more power. We need a pro-state or libertarian party. I suspect a pro-state party would generate far greater support, likely because it is part of our historical/constitutional DNA. EDIT: Sorry for the seemingly tenuous relation to the article. The reason this relates is that all of the justification given by local law enforcement for violating our for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were Federal precedents and Executive Orders. In other words when the Federal government consistently violates federal (constitutional) laws, local governments are emboldened to do the same. Additionally, the size and power of the federal government itself emboldens it to violate its own (constitutional) accountabilities to the people.

apalmer 13y ago
I like some of your platform, but your post seems to be completely unrelated to the article. If anything this specific article details story of very widespread scale corruption among state and municipal government.
- gbhn 13y ago
  Yes. Stories like this are a root cause for why people often welcome federal law enforcement -- the centers of federal enforcement may be vulnerable to other forms of coercion, but they are outside the reach of whatever racket is currently corrupting local law enforcement.

BWStearns 13y ago

IIRC it is the legislative branch of the government that is responsible for raising funds. So when I see this defense "It’s definitely a valuable asset to law enforcement, for purchasing equipment and getting things you normally wouldn’t be able to get to fight crime" I get concerned. There is a very good reason that those with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force are not intended to self-finance.

smrtinsert 13y ago

State rankings: http://www.ij.org/part-ii-grading-the-states-2 http://www.ij.org/part-ii-grading-the-states-2

mkramlich 13y ago

completely off-topic for HN -- and yet 151 points. please somebody save this site. it's spiralling out of control. pg, please

icebraining 13y ago
In China, toddler left for dead sparks debate about society's moral health (654 days ago) Alabama Town’s Failed Pension Is Warning to Cities and States (956 days ago) More Struggling Borrowers Face Pay Garnishment (1221 days ago) Millions of Unemployed Face Years without Jobs (1260 days ago) All submitted by pg himself over the years. How is this story so different?
- derefr 13y ago
  The latter three articles are economics pieces, which tend to spark good, scientifically-minded debates on HN. The first article is political, and I would hope that pg would think better than to post if he was given the same decision over again. It probably felt "less dangerous" to post it two years ago; back then, HN didn't have nearly so many people interested in discussing the political side of an issue--you know, the people you see in this thread :)
  - icebraining 13y ago
    What about Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks, Get a Visit from the Feds (4 days ago)? It's very much a political article, even if it include a technical side. We all know what would be discussed.
bradbatt 13y ago
I keep seeing a small contention on HN say things like this, but there aren't hundreds of political posts — just a few here and there. The ones that do get posted are usually investigative, well-researched, interesting and important articles like this one. To me, the biggest value of sites like HN is always the comments. Here we have some of the brightest, smartest, most driven people around the world gathered together. I think it's interesting to see what others think about things like this. I don't want a political discussion every day, but reading comments on important subjects like civil forfeiture from really, really smart people is interesting and informative. It's likely that many on HN today will have a big impact in shaping our lives in many ways over the next decade and beyond — not just from a technology standpoint. I for one, don't mind the occasional off-topic post that provokes interesting and thoughtful discussion. (And BTW — this is my 2nd account, which I created in order to use my real name — my original account is 4 years old)

mmaunder 13y ago

At DefCon 2013 on Friday the ACLU described a disturbing trend of local law enforcement emulating the feds in their overstepping the boundaries of our civil liberties. The ACLU and EFF are doing great work - particularly the ACLU and I strongly recommend you become a member or give them an anonymous donation if you'd like to help fight stories like this. https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give PS: I'd like to see a kickstarter for dashcams that stream in real-time so even if they're seized the record persists.

jaxbot 13y ago
+1 to the Kickstarter, or any product reco. I suppose even having an audio recorder that streams from your phone to a server would be trivial, and very valuable.
- e12e 13y ago
  This should be pretty easy to set up with a cheap android phone, and some server software. Having it mounted in the vehicle means no need to worry about battery power; the only hard part is how to deal with spotty/poor/low bandwidth reception. Unfortunately sat phones are still expensive for this sort of thing, although I suppose it might be feasible to do low-frame rate black and white shots.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Streaming video, even compressed will eat up your data plan pretty quickly.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
http://dashcamtalk.com/ http://dashcamtalk.com/

Gravityloss 13y ago

This is slightly off topic, but I find the writing style in the article odd, though this kind of writing is common in supposedly good newspapers and magazines with long winded stories: "Outraged by their experience in Tenaha, Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson helped to launch a class-action lawsuit challenging the abuse of a legal doctrine known as civil-asset forfeiture. “Have you looked it up?” Boatright asked me when I met her this spring at Houston’s H&H Saloon, where she runs Steak Night every Monday. She was standing at a mattress-size grill outside. “It’ll blow your mind.”" What does the grill have to do with this? Why does every story have to have adjective laden filler how the people's hair looks like and where the interviewer meets them?

gyepi 13y ago
Discussing the grill serves to provide a context for their meeting and to establish character, in this case, by describing what she does. I imagine most American readers can relate to someone who knows their way around a grill; especially a "mattress" sized one. It's called Litery Journalism. As I recall, Gay Talese and Joan Didion, among others, helped to popularize it.
danso 13y ago
A. Because it shows the reporter was there and actually met the subjects. B. Because it's a way to draw the reader into a story through imagery, before exploring the legal/technical details. Adjective-laden writing is the mark of an amateur. However, in the passage you're objecting to, there doesn't seem to be a single adjective in there.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The apotheosis of the ridiculousness of forfeiture exists in the case "United States vs. $124,700 in US Currency": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... In this case a large amount of money was taken into custody by the Nebraska State Police. It was found guilty of being the proceeds of illegal drug sales and confiscated by the state under asset forfeiture. The human being who had previously been in possession of this currency was neither convicted of nor charged with any drug crime. The US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the defendant currency. I wish I was making this shit up.

rosser 13y ago
I don't know, I think State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix might be a little closer to the apotheosis of this nonsense... It's at least conceivable how $125k USD could have been involved in The Drugs. But a crucifix?

ohashi 13y ago

I noticed it was published in the future (August 13, 2013). I wonder how that happened?

mschuster91 13y ago

Oh god, is this really happening? The US devolve more and more into a totalitarian regime, from an European viewpoint. Makes me worried for the poor (literally) people in the US. We in Germany have at least the "Prozesskostenbeihilfe" and mandatory attorneys as soon as you're arrested. Compared to this, US system looks like 3rd world and it's sick to see this happening.

david927 13y ago
People never live in today, but in the afterimages from different times in the past. Your friend from college has changed; that little town you visited near Prague years ago is quite different now. The America most people see in their mind is the one of decades ago; it's not the America of today. The America of today is quite poor, with around 40% making below the minimum wage of 1968. While there's still a lot of wealth there, it's heavily concentrated into the hands of a few, as is typical in second-world and third-world countries. And it's difficult to reconcile that image with the one in our minds.
- brianlweiner 13y ago
  Do you actually believe that 40% of America live in worst conditions than 1968?
  - sophacles 13y ago
    Do you have any evidence to the contrary. Other than TV technology improving? I mean, aside from some consumer goods, what hasn't gone up in price out of proportion with wages?
  - jbooth 13y ago
    That wasn't what he said, though, was it? If you assume he meant inflation adjusted dollars, what he said was objectively correct. You can draw your own conclusions.

qq66 13y ago

I hope that some business model survives to ensure the production of long-form journalism like this. I fear the longer-term effects on society if journalism like this disappears in lieu of purely user-generated content or blog posts that earn $50 for the author.

donaldc 13y ago

Sounds like unreasonable seizure to me. The search didn't sound all that reasonable either.

azernik 13y ago

“What stands out to me is the nature of how pervasive and dependent police really are on civil-asset forfeiture—it’s their bread and butter—and, therefore, how difficult it is to engage in systemic reform,” Vanita Gupta, of the A.C.L.U., says. What is this, some medieval state? Are the local lords so unable to fund themselves through taxes that they extort passing travellers?

scotty79 13y ago
People never change. They are just becoming more so.
seszett 13y ago
That is exactly what I was thinking. This whole thing just looks like what used to happen in medieval times, with military forces living on the money of commoners, local communities extorting money from travellers, laws and law enforcement practices being different from one county to another... I don't understand how a modern country could come back to this situation.

wisty 13y ago

Later in the article, it gets even worse. And old couple had their house taken, because their son had sold a small quantity of marijuana from their porch.

AsymetricCom 13y ago

Well, we wanted privatized services, right?

steveax 13y ago

I'm surprised that nobody (not even the article) has mentioned the militarization of police as a symbiotic factor. Surely the desire for SWAT units (and all the fancy toys that go along with them) fuels this practice -- and in return, the practice fuels the growth of police militarization.

danso 13y ago
FWIW, the OP does allude to the militarization of the police when describing the violence used in their cash-grabs: > In the midst of festivities one evening in late May, 2008, forty-odd officers in black commando gear stormed the gallery and its rear patio, ordering the guests to the ground. Some in attendance thought that they were the victims of an armed robbery. One young woman who had fallen only to her knees told me that a masked figure screamed at her, “Bitch, you think you’re too pretty to get in the mud?” A boot from behind kicked her to the ground" While the militarization of police is a huge issue, it's one that is orthogonal to the one the OP tackles. A system in which police can confiscate property -- with very low risk of being called out for it -- and share a cut of the seized goods (with the prosecutors) will quickly lead to a very bad situation. It doesn't matter if the money goes to buying more commando gear or towards a prosecutor's vacation home.

api 13y ago

Combine this with the DEA / NSA data sharing and you have a recipe for the devastating financial harassment of dissidents. At this point the USA is not far from Putin's Russia in terms of totalitarianism and corruption.

mcv 13y ago

If there was ever any remote chance of me visiting the US, this definitely kills the last remains of it. Please, please fix your country. (Because I really do want to visit. Just not while it's this broken.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chflamplighter 13y ago

America is a Business and not a country. Profit motive will always rule; good for managing a business in most cases, bad for managing a society in all cases.

MichaelGG 13y ago

"The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing." No, no it's not. It's flawed and messed up intrinsically. The fact that even a story covering this would say something to the effect of it's OK just abused... sigh.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

The article mentions Barry Washington, but I suspect that may be a mistake[1], and that they may be referring to Barry Cooper who after years of making lots of dodgy drug arrests and training other LE officers the same; infamously changed sides and now sells DVDs to the public that teach how to avoid "getting busted" http://www.texasobserver.org/gone-rogue/ http://www.texasobserver.org/gone-rogue/ [1] edit: I'm the one who is mistaken, see frogpelt below. Leaving it up because I think it adds more to the conversation regarding the practice of police work as it relates to drugs and property seizure.

frogpelt 13y ago
From the article you linked: "Cooper says one mentor was Barry Washington, who is named in a class-action lawsuit that’s been filed against the city of Tenaha, Texas."
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Rats, I should have read that more carefully! Thanks for catching it.