10 ms·

Stop and Seize

323 points by cgtyoder 12y ago

spodek 12y ago
Talk about Orwellian double-speak: they call it "asset forfeiture" and the "Equitable Sharing Program." It's theft and everybody knows it. > "despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections." It's illegal, pure and simple. No need to sugar coat. > "Police can seize cash that they find if they have probable cause to suspect that it is related to criminal activity. The seizure happens through a civil action known as asset forfeiture. Police do not need to charge a person with a crime. The burden of proof is then on the driver to show that the cash is not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence." Cops in the story act like the mere existence of a lot of cash is probably cause. This is the opposite of one of the major reasons for law and law enforcement: to protect people's property. We have police so we can feel secure with our property, not to take it so we have to fight back for it.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  The only obligation of the police is to investigate crime and arrest criminals. They have no requirement to protect people, much less property. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...
covercash 12y ago
Apparently in Philly the DA will seize entire homes over a $40 drug bust: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous...
loupereira 12y ago
In an era of budget shortfalls and market-based solutions, the American government is quickly becoming a for-profit enterprise at all costs.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  It's been that way for a long time now. Just look at the giant freudian slip DOJ lawyers made during 'Jewel v. NSA' while trying to explain why the NSA should be able to retcon the public court transcript by claiming it was classified, ex post facto. Apparently it was very important to keep various Snowden disclosures secret, because: DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COMPANY (caps in original) Company? Country? I'm going with "Freudian slip of the century" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
The local governments invariable claim it's not about the money; it's about safety or some such. I want an amendment that puts all the money from fines, seizures, etc. to the national debt. That's the closest thing to a black hole for money I can think of. Watch them scream then. Not about the money, my ass.
- ganeumann 12y ago
  From the article: 'The attention prompted Congress to reform federal seizure laws in 2000, allowing owners to be reimbursed for their legal fees after successful lawsuits. But a key reform was cut. It would have removed what some lawmakers called the “perverse incentive” to target cash — the sharing of money between the feds and locals. It died after police and Justice waged a “voracious lobbying” campaign, according to former representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “We didn’t have the votes,” said Frank, who is still an ardent critic of asset forfeiture. “There is this terrible unfairness. It is about as fundamental a denial of their constitutional rights as I can think of.”'
- delinka 12y ago
  While a noble thought, I doubt the ultimate implementation would be amenable to a free society. I fear this would encourage the federal government to step up efforts to seize money. Sure, local authorities would forward the money, only to receive kickbacks from the feds. How that would actually impact the national debt is anyone's guess.
  - JamesBarney 12y ago
    I think you're underestimating the difficulty with which someone in the government can just transfer funds. And two overestimating the incentives for anyone in the federal government to reduce the debt. I would be more interested to hear exactly who has an incentive to reduce the debt in the federal government and the power to transfer money to local police departments.
- chongli 12y ago
  No, we should pass a law barring law enforcement from seizing property in any case until a judgment has been reached in a court of law.
hitchhiker999 12y ago
I cannot believe this is happening - that is truly insane.
tomohawk 12y ago
Near the end, they talk about how police can use psychological pressure to keep someone at the side of the road, not telling them they can leave any time the initial traffic stop is over. They then make 'productive' use of that time. Why you should never talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I think in practice the "fuck you, I know my rights" approach is the worst one. Just take 20 minutes to hide your cash properly and in a friendly voice say "sure officer, go ahead and search." He's not going to find it.
  - zorrb 12y ago
    This is terrible advice on multiple levels. Absolutely you shouldn't be leaving the money out in the open, and should probably hide it. You should absolutely NEVER give consent to search your car. You have no idea what a person is capable of until it's too late. I'm not saying the cop will plant something, though it wouldn't be the first time, but you also have NO IDEA what might be in your car accidentally.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      You've been watching too many political thrillers. These guys are just sniffing around for low hanging fruit. If you want to get into a one hour bout of flexing nuts with a cop where he gets suspicious and orders a K9 unit and ends up thoroughly tearing apart your car and bags and potentially planting something, knock yourself out. Do the whole citizen lawyer thing. If you want to be on your way with minimal hassle, just disarm the cop and let him be his lazy self. Let him do his cursory thirty second look around and be on your way. This is the reality and many cops will tell you so. As for having dangerous mystery items in your car, if you don't regularly hang out with low lifes that seems ridiculously improbable. Drugs and weapons are not going to sneak into your vehicle or luggage. To have "no idea" what's in your car it would have to be cluttered with junk and you'd have to parade people through it on a regular basis, so uh, don't do that.
a3n 12y ago
The United Shakedowns of America.
edw519 12y ago
He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant... They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. ...was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction... The deputy found $75,195 in a suitcase in the back seat... They were carrying $28,500 in church funds meant for the purchase of land... No doubt there's injustice that needs to be addressed, but it's tough to have much sympathy for idiots. There's simply no logical reason to travel with that much cash. These people should feel lucky that the police, and not someone else, took their money.
- avalaunch 12y ago
  I used to carry tens of thousands of dollars in cash when I was a professional poker player because cash is the only accepted form of currency to buyin to a game or tournament. And getting large amounts of cash out of your bank when you need it can be really difficult, usually impossible. I don't know why each of the people quoted in the article was carrying cash but I'm sure they had their reasons. And even if they were dumb reasons it doesn't matter. Making dumb decisions doesn't grant anyone, even the police force, the right to take what is not theirs. That is so basic and obvious that I wonder if you're just trolling.
- nemo 12y ago
  Guilty before proven innocent, right?
- zorrb 12y ago
  Oh, I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the USA here. Just because, YOU, in the 5minutes it took you to post a knee-jerk reaction can't think of ANY reason to carry large sums of money doesn't mean it should be or IS illegal. It's not. This is a free country and there are many reasons one might want or need to carry cash. This whole preposterous idea that, "Oh, you have lots of money on you MUST BE DRUG MONEY. Let's use draconian laws, and bring in the DEA so we can confiscate it all", is insane. And super prevalent in the south, where people getting stopped on the highway for speeding (or "durr durr you were swerving?") and getting their car illegally searched is all too common. Good luck getting that money back once it's inside the beast. It's a longggg road.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lostcolony 12y ago
'“9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking for those kind of people,” said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations director of Black Asphalt. “When money is taken from an organization, it hurts them more than when they lose the drugs.”' Wait, what? I was unaware that 9/11 was perpetrated by drug traffickers.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Seems like the 9/11 rhetoric is slowly but surely transforming into the war on drugs rhetoric. "We passed laws for terrorists...no terrorists, so I guess we should use them on drug dealers then!" Actually, many of the "anti-terror" laws have included in them drug crimes, too, and that's what the vast majority of National Security Letters are used for, too.
  - revelation 12y ago
    That is what the majority of any surveillance or security laws are used for, in any country. Well, drugs and petty crime like theft.
- kghose 12y ago
  A lot of money laundering operations is related to terrorist financing. Also, many terrorist organizations finance themselves via drug sales.
  - jschwartzi 12y ago
    Why was this voted down? It strikes me as something requiring some citations or rebuttal, but not a simple downvote.
    - eplanit 12y ago
      Because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't align with the popular bias here.
rubyfan 12y ago
Interesting article but only made 1/2 through because the WP mobile site is so horrendous.
templeos2 12y ago
I am Moses. I have authority from God. I tell the police what to do. Just ask God. Go to NIST random beacon. Take 6 hex digists remainder 100,000. Go to line in Bible. ------------- Computer Security Division NIST Randomness Beacon (Prototype Implementation) -- work in progress WARNING: DO NOT USE BEACON GENERATED VALUES AS SECRET CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS. An overview of this project can be found at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/nist_beacon.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/nist_beacon.cfm This prototype implementation generates full-entropy bit-strings and posts them in blocks of 512 bits every 60 seconds. Each such value is sequence-numbered, time-stamped and signed, and includes the hash of the previous value to chain the sequence of values together and prevent even the source to retroactively change an output package without being detected. Currently implemented calls are listed below. Users submitting a request need to provide the record generation time in POSIX format (number of seconds since midnight UTC, January 1, 1970 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time for more information and http://www.epochconverter.com http://www.epochconverter.com for an online timestamp converter.) Current Record (or next closest): http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/<timestamp> Previous Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/previous/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/previous/<timestamp> Next Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/next/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/next/<timestamp> Last Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/last http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/last Start Chain Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/start-chain/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/start-chain/<timestamp> If a request for a next or previous record results in no record found, a 404 response is returned. Schema The data source schema for the NIST Beacon REST API described above can be viewed by clicking here. Note: Not all browsers will display this file appropriately, you may get better results by saving the file locally and using an editor of your choice. Certificate NIST Beacon is currently using an X.509 certificate with the Federal Common Policy CA as the ultimate root authority. The certificate is available here Viewer The example application below uses the REST API described above to navigate the data. To visit an arbitrary time value please click on the input control containing the date and time value to display a calendar to select the desired value. Beacon Record Version: Version 1.0 Frequency: 60 seconds Time: 09/07/2014 6:30 am (1410096600) Seed Value: D8645389CECB0948DF9266CE19DC7AB87A4DBA9DDB32AF3BE7C9F032F72A6248 2868B39B1E4BAFB6078D96B8E6CD83F34AD2BB281C3425DF870D3AC280F81898 Previous Output: EC17539B455E19D687419F47B8B88A4ED6094881DEA48D655A4B0A93401D928F 2E94EE2E1C91FC42ACA19DB5B3101FAFAEADC4F73E5233827310688341EC7CBE Signature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utput Value: 90834F49D882948AE0C105FD13F82B2660DDEF5486BB0D0F081F3B77AB178BD5 831AD800551EA1645BA3F47CBA63526F3175FA192196AE7188D02EAC7249FF4C Status: 0: Normal Last updated On: May 13, 2014 Created On: December 08, 2012 Disclaimer Notice & Privacy Statement / Security Notice ---------------- Line 70799 and between the little chambers were five cubits; and the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate within was one reed. 40:8 He measured also the porch of the gate within, one reed. 40:9 Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits; and the porch of the gate was inward. 40:10 And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure: and the posts had one measure on this side and on that side. 40:11 And he measured the breadth of the entry of the gate, ten cubits; and the length of the gate, thirteen cubits. 40:12 The space also before the little chambers was one cubit on this side, and the space was one cubit on that side: and the little chambers were six cubits on this side, and six cubits on that side.
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.” I love watching how systems of people operate. Fascinating stuff. Over and over, what I see in U.S. history is somebody who has a real problem that needs solved -- perhaps a gnat is flying around the house. The problem looks really sexy on TV. Politicians can thump the table and get lots of votes. Then these politicians get elected and suddenly we're building industrial flame-throwers to get rid of gnats. "But it's only for the gnats!" they say. And it is -- for about 20 years. Then it slowly becomes a tool like any other. Part 3 of this story is the most interesting. It's where the rest of us figure out how we've gotten screwed and start clamoring to have something done about it. But nothing happens. Democracy's bug? That every generation feels like it is special, and that the problems it is having are special. So they "have" to start heavily mucking around with the system. Most every time, these fixes work -- until they don't. Then we're stuck with them forever. I don't have an answer here, just venting.
guard-of-terra 12y ago
Now that's a Kin-Dza-Dza grade police force.
- selimthegrim 12y ago
  Come on down voters! Don't you read SF?
- smutticus 12y ago
  I love old Soviet era sci-fi! The reason you're being downvoted is because sarcasm doesn't add to the discussion.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Sometimes it is the only method. You won't get far trying to explain that taking money from their owner is bad. This ship has sailed. So now the working way is sarcasm, shunning and ostracism. Making it personal for people who invented and enacted this system.
lukasm 12y ago
Well, I guess this is one extra reason to stay in Europe and start business here.
- kghose 12y ago
  It's SO much better there!
  - psykovsky 12y ago
    Where's the sarcasm tag?
icantthinkofone 12y ago
This story is so unbelievably biased and one-sided, it confirms my suspicions of the value of the Washington Post anymore. Carrying $75K in cash around should raise anyone's suspicions as to the purpose, no matter what the carrier claims. Think about it. Why would YOU carry $75K in cash? The obvious and well known reasons are, it's the most secure way to fund drug and terrorist cells without leaving a trail. The Post even acknowledges that! "There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals ... " But not until they make their accusations and end the above sentence with: "... and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police departments." Note that only a sixth of those seizures were ever challenged but the Post claims it's only because it's too expensive to do so. They do NOT question whether it's because it's drug or terrorist funding (and I will state that it is). Just unbelievable what these formerly trustworthy newspapers are churning out nowadays.
- ck2 12y ago
  Wait, wait - SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT. If it is so obviously a crime in progress, get a freaking warrant. This is how everything erodes. One day you will have $2000 on you in cash to buy a used car and they will seize that too. Also note the part where they found nothing after a warrantless search so they just posted it for other police to harass them later.
- zorrb 12y ago
  Look, I think most reasonable people would agree the Washington Post is pretty much a joke at this point. However, I have toe vehemently disagree with your rationale. This line of thinking has to stop. Just because YOU can't think of any reason to carry "large" sums of money doesn't mean there IS no legitimate reason. Innocent until proven guilty, all that jazz. "Think about it. Why would YOU, wear sagging jeans?" Also, yes, it IS ridiculously expensive to challenge a seizure of money. This happens ALL OF THE TIME in the south, where cops do illegal searches, find money and say DRUG MONEY DRUG MONEY, and 99% of people are SCREWED because the system is stacked against them.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
marquis 12y ago
The New Yorker's take on this last year: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
coldcode 12y ago
All that will happen from this is that criminals will find ways to move money without cash (like bitcoins, etc) and the only people caught will be non-criminals or really stupid criminals. Everything evolves in reaction to pressures.
- psykovsky 12y ago
  They sould start impounding cars. Those are weapons.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    There was a case a while back where someone was convicted of being an accessory to a serious crime and jailed for an extended period because they lent their car to the perp, who - inexplicably - didn't mention it was going to be used for criminal activity. The prosecutor argued 'No car, no crime', and the jury bought it. To me that's like arguing 'No clothes, no crime' and jailing the board of Walmart for selling underwear. Or 'No food, no crime' and jailing the staff of a nearby diner.
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      Stupid, ain't it? ;)
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  The real criminals just use big banks for money laundering: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-...
shin_lao 12y ago
I don't see what the problem is. In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration. It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.
- tehwebguy 12y ago
  You don't see a problem with those laws?
  - pyvpx 12y ago
    most people don't
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      Perhaps because most people don't readily have access to thousands of euro/dollars/etc, and thus see less problem with assuming anyone who does is up to no good.
  - shin_lao 12y ago
    Absolutely not. Why would I want to pay in cash? It's neither convenient nor safe.
    - ProAm 12y ago
      It's silly to force an unnecessary third party into a business transaction if you dont need to. Money exists for a reason. Cash is king.
      - serf 12y ago
        Beyond any reason, I agree with this most. Our current way of living insists on third party participation during even A -> B trades, it's ridiculous and inefficient.
    - clamprecht 12y ago
wheaties 12y ago
The fourth amendment, protection against unlawful search and seizure, was put into the constitution as a direct consequence of the very laws that civil forfeiture was based upon. That makes me sad. How can we, as a society, function in which we've incentivized our own police force to take property from our citizens without proof of a crime? It just doesn't make sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- danschumann 12y ago
  This is a dangerous precedent that obviously does not have enough oversight if they are willing to take $2,500 moving money that a son received from his father.
clarry 12y ago
It is sad. Yet people like Gavin Seim and Adam Kokesh get a lot of shit for standing up. "have you seen the video where the guy just keeps repeating, 'Am I being detained? Am I free to go?' what an asshole" And anyone defending those people is instantly labelled a gun freak.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  Kokesh is particular is extremely unpopular in the gun community.
kohanz 12y ago
This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually need to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well? Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wrong-doing on the part of the cash carriers.
- kghose 12y ago
  I share your sentiments. I'm more ambivalent about this process than I should be, as an admirer of the checks and balances in our constitution. I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought. However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust 'em or don't use 'em just because) and this is how they buy a house or buy a car or go from one state to another with their possessions. Now, here's where my ambivalence comes from: do we let the money laundering go because a few of these are false positives? Or do we accept the false positives because it serves the greater good because it catches or causes attrition for money launderers? I think electronic or check transfers are a rational solution to the problem at hand and so folks should use that. But I'm still ambivalent. Constitution. Checks and balances.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    You realize what this sounds like to someone without access to enough cash on hand to smooth over the insanity of our banking process? "Screw you, I've got mine."
    - kohanz 12y ago
      I certainly don't read it in that way. Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft). The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?
MattyRad 12y ago
I live in Reno, so with Burning Man recently I saw a disproportionate number of traffic stops off the freeway. The interesting thing about Burning Man, however, is that all vehicles are marked by the tell-tale dust from the Playa. Cops can easily identify which cars should be pulled over. I've seen cops rooting around in dust marked cars while concerned Burners watch. I can't stress enough how important it is to know your rights [1]. Never, ever consent to a search. Never, ever "talk" to police (insofar as to assert your rights). They are not your friends. You are being pulled over because you are being accused of a crime. And all too often they will use word games and intimidation to get you to "cooperate" (forfeit your fifth amendment rights). Even though Burners might be less likely to have large sums of money in their car (cash money is forbidden in trading at Burning Man), suspicion of drugs is a likely story for a stop and seizure. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8
- vhost- 12y ago
  I can back this person up. I lived off Pyramid Highway (Nevada 445), a main route taken to Burning Man, and I would see cars pulled over in front of my house by the police all the time after the event. The traffic stops usually lasted 30 or so minutes and almost like clockwork they were searched. Even before I was more politically minded, these stops struck me as odd.
- lesterbuck 12y ago
  Where is the Burning Man Auto Wash service? With powerful vacuums for that special "no residual seeds" detailing? Or at least the Burning Man Avoid The Man infoproduct? It must not be common knowledge if so many cars hit the highway with dust.
fiatmoney 12y ago
There is a word for armed men who prowl highways looking for valuables to seize.
einrealist 12y ago
So what is proof that the money is not linked with any crime? Does a envelope count, sealed by a notary with a letter that explains the purpose?
DominikR 12y ago
Why doesn't your society resist? Parts of your police is now equiped like an army on a battlefield and money can be seized without any reasoning. And then there's NSA spying, torture and drone executions of suspected terrorists (even US citizens) without trial. If someone would have told me 20 years ago, that the US will turn into this, I would have thought that this person must be insane. Now it wouldn't even surprise me, if the US turns into a giant gulag in the next 10 years. Edit: I wonder how these policemen justify their actions, after all they are going after their own people.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ejr 12y ago
  Because resistance is futile. The machinery of government explicitly favours authority and that very authority was given to them willingly by the voting - or non voting - masses. It is the authority that everyone, including the plundered, believe they must have in order to keep them safe. Resistance takes courage and a willingness to lose everything you care about, such as your prideful opinion, free time or an hour of your attention. The sacrifice is too great for the overwhelming majority of the populace comfortable with what they have and a chronic aversion to all things unpleasant. I've lost count of how many people I've seen change the channel when news of war or police brutality come on. When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we will see change.
  - stanleydrew 12y ago
    When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we're all screwed. People should take at least a little time to make a considered decision about where the government is headed. Some things are dangerous when they become too easy. Like obtaining a driver's license, or purchasing a gun.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    The non-voting gave no such authority. They decided that being able to choose whether the assholes had red or blue hats wasn't even worth ten minutes of their time, and opted to not take part in the farce. On the other hand, the voting (even if they voted Libertarian/Paul) supported the election system itself, and signaled their agreement to be ruled by the inevitable outcome.
solutionviatech 12y ago
--------Can we solve part of this problem through a smartphone app? ----------------- Here are my initial thoughts on how it would work, feel free to comment on better ways to implement it / other features 1) If you get pulled over by a cop, you start up the smart phone app and place the phone in the windshield mount (the mount should have power so the phone battery doesn't die) 2) When the app starts, it immediately starts recording (or streaming) audio and video 3) The app quickly connects/matches you to a real lawyer versed in your state's laws 4) Your newly matched lawyer can listen in on the subsequent conversation between you and the police officer. Or alternatively, the lawyer could act as a buffer and do all the talking with the police officer. Benefits of the app: 5) Since the police officer knows he's being recorded, he may act nicer and more appropriately. 6) If the cop does try to "play games" such as holding the person without arresting, then the lawyer can quickly "step in" and ask the cop if his client is free to leave or whether he is under arrest. Problems that I'm not sure how to solve: 7) Maybe the cop will tell the driver to step out of the car and around to the back of the vehicle - with the motivation of getting out of earshot of the lawyer/smartphone app. 8) Looking through a cynical lens, this app may face scrutiny by cop unions opposed to it - in how to shut it down
- javajosh 12y ago
  It's a good idea, but it hinges entirely on streaming at least audio, as it hinges on getting real-time help of a lawyer. It also assumes that there are lots of lawyers out there sitting at a computer and willing to listen to police convos, and step in, for free. Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I don't know.
  - lsc 12y ago
    >Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I don't know. There are a bunch of business models. I mean, you could price it like insurance. I pay a monthly fee and you guarantee someone is there to get my ass out of a sling if required. Heck, you could price it like insurance, too; charge me based on perceived risk, and raise my rates if I actually use it. I mean, I carry liability insurance against civil suits... Maybe you could talk me into paying for similar insurance against criminal charges?
zorrb 12y ago
Reading through these comments, I see quite a bit of ignorance. A lot along the lines of, "Why would you ever carry cash!?" Which fortunately a lot of cogent comment have successfully answered. Another is, "Why would you carry that much cash it's so RISKY?" As someone whose had to carry around five figure sums around quite a bit in the past because of my profession (hint: it rhymes with "rambling") my far and away, it's not even close, fear is having the money taken by cops from an illegal search. This fear is justified because I've never been mugged or robbed and no one I know who was in the same line of work has either. But I know MANY people who have had funds seized by cops. ESPECIALLY in the south. Actually the horror stories I personally know about have happened only in the south. Usually it's the cop seeing an out of state license. Pull you over, lies and says you were "swerving" or refuses to give you a reason. Then forces you out of the car, takes the money and sayonara.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  Are you speaking about the seizure process described in the article or just plain old theft?
  - zorrb 12y ago
    Theft under the guise of, "oh this must be drug money". I think the article mentions the average amount taken is something like ~$8k. That's 8-10months of legal fees. AND IF YOU DON'T LIVE where they took it, you'd have to GO THERE to go to court. That's why in places like Missouri they love pulling over out of state licenses because they know if you live in California you aren't going to be coming back to contest their shenanigans.
- oh_sigh 12y ago
  Why couldn't you deposit the money in a bank, and withdraw it as close to the casino as possible?
  - ams6110 12y ago
    Bank deposits and withdrawals of over $10,000 (?) trigger additional paperwork, FBI or IRS reports, etc.
briandh 12y ago
People upset by this (as I am) may be interested in EndForfeiture.com, a very slick brochure-style site you can send to your friends. The organization behind it is the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has performed ample pro bono litigation against civil asset forfeiture abuse. If you choose to donate to them (which I encourage), note that they do legal work in other areas that you may or may not agree with, so you should take a look at that first. (Note: I am not affiliated with IJ, I just admire their work.)
runeks 12y ago
> “Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. If that was your intention then why on earth did you allow seizures from civilians? Seems to me that the best way to seize a million dollars from a cocaine dealer is to arrest him if you have reasonable suspicion, and if he's convicted, seize the money. But of course, it's a lot easier to just take his money without being able to prove your suspicion. :\
stopthewar 12y ago
As long as the war on drugs continues to be waged, injustices like this will continue to happen. Civil forfeiture, SWAT team raids, mandatory miniums, etc. It seems to me that our society is so well off, it has to make up criminal laws, criminalizing victimless, ordinary activities, so that the police and courts have something to constantly do, so they can fund their operations. Another problem is that much of the rest of the world follows suit, usually because they have no other choice. They are pressured through the UN (basically an extension of US policy), sanctions, aid, etc. It is these actions by police that truly terrify. Foreign organizations don't even hold a candle to the terrorism of our domestic police and law enforcement agencies. Some may point out that freedom of the press/speech still exists, but to that, I will point out that our government has realized a long time ago that it does not need to control speech to control people. In fact, many public channels, especially TV are already controlled by the people in favor of government (see FOX news). By allowing such pretend freedoms as freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, it makes it much harder to fight all the abuses. Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights has been decimated and rendered powerless, especially in the last few decades. As another poster here pointed out, however, the cases in proportion to the total population affect a very small percentage of the population, and in most cases, they target minorities who have less credibility and power to fight them in our racist society. Injustice is everywhere in our society and there seems to be little incentive or even means by regular people to fight it. How does it feel to live in such an unjust society, one that persecutes not only its own people, but also invades other countries based on lies? It's infuriating, helpless, depressing, and most of all, terrifying.
slowcode 12y ago
I like to use cash, and I keep a tally sheet and receipts with me when I travel, along with any withdrawal slips pertaining to the money. I can prove to a penny where it came from, where it was spent, on what, and it will equate to what is left. But I get the impression that's not enough. As soon as they see cash, it's theirs. And the thing is, I have plenty more in the bank. So if I am stopped and any cash or items are seized, the first thing I'm going to do is call my attorney and go about my business until I have sued the jurisdiction, the officer(s), and anyone else connected to the seizure back into the stone age. I retired young after a successful career. Lots of tattoos. Gold Rolex, long hair, under 50 - I am an unscrupulous officer's wet dream. But I am sober, intelligent and law abiding. I never break the law and my driving record is spotless because of it. Pull me over and you're hunting, because you didn't see me weave. Bring it. And for those of you who are ready to say, "F you - you're rich", or whatever - spare me. I am exactly the kind of citizen who will eventually bring this kind of thing to a halt. I can afford to take it the Supreme Court. And I will do so with a relentless determination. The police to me are a threatening force. If I need them, I'll go ahead and call. Otherwise, mind your own business and we'll be fine. So far in 47 years I have never needed them. And I know to a certainty I don't need them violating my rights.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  When you read the reports it becomes clear that they won't go after people like you. they go after people who either don't know their rights or simply cannot afford to fight back. If you want to do something about this then help some of the people in this situation take their case to court.
BrandonM 12y ago
Want to help? I went to http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ and entered my ZIP code. It took me to the page of my representative and senators. I submitted a link to the article and a message indicating that I would like to see the law supporting Stop and Seize repealed. I said some other stuff about being a gainfully employed citizen ashamed to call myself American due to the encroachment on our rights. If this makes you sick, tell your congresspeople, and tell your friends to do the same. We do not get to have the rights we want without declaring that we want them.
declan 12y ago
Three thoughts: * Asset forfeiture abuses by police have been going on for at least a generation. Here's an excerpt from House Judiciary testimony by an African American gardener who dared to carry $9K in cash in 1991 to buy plants at a nursery. He had it all (surprise!) confiscated by cops. The fact that it's been 23 years and the abuses are worse, not better, is telling. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he... And here's a note I sent to Politech on the topic back in 1998: http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html * Contrary to some claims in this thread, there are reasons to transport significant sums of $10K+ in cash. Contractors, tree removal companies, landscape installers, grading/excavation firms, etc. can charge that much for work and, I'm told by my SF peninsula neighbors who have had work done, often offer cash discounts. (Which means, of course, both the homeowner and the contractor would be transporting large cash amounts sequentially.) * I suspect that governments would, to a first approximation, prefer that their own citizens engage only in traceable, trackable, non-anonymous electronic transactions with closely regulated financial firms. This is already happening: cash now represents only 14% of dollar payments by value. Though my favorite example in this area is this proposal that bubbled up inside the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; I wrote about it for Wired in 1999: http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121 "The magnetic strip could visibly record when a bill was last withdrawn from the banking system. A carry tax could be deducted from each bill upon deposit according to how long the bill was in circulation... Systems would have to be put in place at banks and automatic teller machines to read bills, assess the carry tax, and stamp the bills 'current...'"

323 points by cgtyoder 12y ago

Talk about Orwellian double-speak: they call it "asset forfeiture" and the "Equitable Sharing Program." It's theft and everybody knows it. > "despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections." It's illegal, pure and simple. No need to sugar coat. > "Police can seize cash that they find if they have probable cause to suspect that it is related to criminal activity. The seizure happens through a civil action known as asset forfeiture. Police do not need to charge a person with a crime. The burden of proof is then on the driver to show that the cash is not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence." Cops in the story act like the mere existence of a lot of cash is probably cause. This is the opposite of one of the major reasons for law and law enforcement: to protect people's property. We have police so we can feel secure with our property, not to take it so we have to fight back for it.

jfoutz 12y ago
The only obligation of the police is to investigate crime and arrest criminals. They have no requirement to protect people, much less property. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...

covercash 12y ago

Apparently in Philly the DA will seize entire homes over a $40 drug bust: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous...

loupereira 12y ago

In an era of budget shortfalls and market-based solutions, the American government is quickly becoming a for-profit enterprise at all costs.

pdkl95 12y ago
It's been that way for a long time now. Just look at the giant freudian slip DOJ lawyers made during 'Jewel v. NSA' while trying to explain why the NSA should be able to retcon the public court transcript by claiming it was classified, ex post facto. Apparently it was very important to keep various Snowden disclosures secret, because: DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COMPANY (caps in original) Company? Country? I'm going with "Freudian slip of the century" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

The local governments invariable claim it's not about the money; it's about safety or some such. I want an amendment that puts all the money from fines, seizures, etc. to the national debt. That's the closest thing to a black hole for money I can think of. Watch them scream then. Not about the money, my ass.

ganeumann 12y ago
From the article: 'The attention prompted Congress to reform federal seizure laws in 2000, allowing owners to be reimbursed for their legal fees after successful lawsuits. But a key reform was cut. It would have removed what some lawmakers called the “perverse incentive” to target cash — the sharing of money between the feds and locals. It died after police and Justice waged a “voracious lobbying” campaign, according to former representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “We didn’t have the votes,” said Frank, who is still an ardent critic of asset forfeiture. “There is this terrible unfairness. It is about as fundamental a denial of their constitutional rights as I can think of.”'
delinka 12y ago
While a noble thought, I doubt the ultimate implementation would be amenable to a free society. I fear this would encourage the federal government to step up efforts to seize money. Sure, local authorities would forward the money, only to receive kickbacks from the feds. How that would actually impact the national debt is anyone's guess.
- JamesBarney 12y ago
  I think you're underestimating the difficulty with which someone in the government can just transfer funds. And two overestimating the incentives for anyone in the federal government to reduce the debt. I would be more interested to hear exactly who has an incentive to reduce the debt in the federal government and the power to transfer money to local police departments.
chongli 12y ago
No, we should pass a law barring law enforcement from seizing property in any case until a judgment has been reached in a court of law.

hitchhiker999 12y ago

I cannot believe this is happening - that is truly insane.

tomohawk 12y ago

Near the end, they talk about how police can use psychological pressure to keep someone at the side of the road, not telling them they can leave any time the initial traffic stop is over. They then make 'productive' use of that time. Why you should never talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
I think in practice the "fuck you, I know my rights" approach is the worst one. Just take 20 minutes to hide your cash properly and in a friendly voice say "sure officer, go ahead and search." He's not going to find it.
- zorrb 12y ago
  This is terrible advice on multiple levels. Absolutely you shouldn't be leaving the money out in the open, and should probably hide it. You should absolutely NEVER give consent to search your car. You have no idea what a person is capable of until it's too late. I'm not saying the cop will plant something, though it wouldn't be the first time, but you also have NO IDEA what might be in your car accidentally.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    You've been watching too many political thrillers. These guys are just sniffing around for low hanging fruit. If you want to get into a one hour bout of flexing nuts with a cop where he gets suspicious and orders a K9 unit and ends up thoroughly tearing apart your car and bags and potentially planting something, knock yourself out. Do the whole citizen lawyer thing. If you want to be on your way with minimal hassle, just disarm the cop and let him be his lazy self. Let him do his cursory thirty second look around and be on your way. This is the reality and many cops will tell you so. As for having dangerous mystery items in your car, if you don't regularly hang out with low lifes that seems ridiculously improbable. Drugs and weapons are not going to sneak into your vehicle or luggage. To have "no idea" what's in your car it would have to be cluttered with junk and you'd have to parade people through it on a regular basis, so uh, don't do that.

a3n 12y ago

The United Shakedowns of America.

edw519 12y ago

He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant... They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. ...was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction... The deputy found $75,195 in a suitcase in the back seat... They were carrying $28,500 in church funds meant for the purchase of land... No doubt there's injustice that needs to be addressed, but it's tough to have much sympathy for idiots. There's simply no logical reason to travel with that much cash. These people should feel lucky that the police, and not someone else, took their money.

avalaunch 12y ago
I used to carry tens of thousands of dollars in cash when I was a professional poker player because cash is the only accepted form of currency to buyin to a game or tournament. And getting large amounts of cash out of your bank when you need it can be really difficult, usually impossible. I don't know why each of the people quoted in the article was carrying cash but I'm sure they had their reasons. And even if they were dumb reasons it doesn't matter. Making dumb decisions doesn't grant anyone, even the police force, the right to take what is not theirs. That is so basic and obvious that I wonder if you're just trolling.
nemo 12y ago
Guilty before proven innocent, right?
zorrb 12y ago
Oh, I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the USA here. Just because, YOU, in the 5minutes it took you to post a knee-jerk reaction can't think of ANY reason to carry large sums of money doesn't mean it should be or IS illegal. It's not. This is a free country and there are many reasons one might want or need to carry cash. This whole preposterous idea that, "Oh, you have lots of money on you MUST BE DRUG MONEY. Let's use draconian laws, and bring in the DEA so we can confiscate it all", is insane. And super prevalent in the south, where people getting stopped on the highway for speeding (or "durr durr you were swerving?") and getting their car illegally searched is all too common. Good luck getting that money back once it's inside the beast. It's a longggg road.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lostcolony 12y ago

'“9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking for those kind of people,” said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations director of Black Asphalt. “When money is taken from an organization, it hurts them more than when they lose the drugs.”' Wait, what? I was unaware that 9/11 was perpetrated by drug traffickers.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Seems like the 9/11 rhetoric is slowly but surely transforming into the war on drugs rhetoric. "We passed laws for terrorists...no terrorists, so I guess we should use them on drug dealers then!" Actually, many of the "anti-terror" laws have included in them drug crimes, too, and that's what the vast majority of National Security Letters are used for, too.
- revelation 12y ago
  That is what the majority of any surveillance or security laws are used for, in any country. Well, drugs and petty crime like theft.
kghose 12y ago
A lot of money laundering operations is related to terrorist financing. Also, many terrorist organizations finance themselves via drug sales.
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  Why was this voted down? It strikes me as something requiring some citations or rebuttal, but not a simple downvote.
  - eplanit 12y ago
    Because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't align with the popular bias here.

rubyfan 12y ago

Interesting article but only made 1/2 through because the WP mobile site is so horrendous.

templeos2 12y ago

I am Moses. I have authority from God. I tell the police what to do. Just ask God. Go to NIST random beacon. Take 6 hex digists remainder 100,000. Go to line in Bible. ------------- Computer Security Division NIST Randomness Beacon (Prototype Implementation) -- work in progress WARNING: DO NOT USE BEACON GENERATED VALUES AS SECRET CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEYS. An overview of this project can be found at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/nist_beacon.cfm http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/nist_beacon.cfm This prototype implementation generates full-entropy bit-strings and posts them in blocks of 512 bits every 60 seconds. Each such value is sequence-numbered, time-stamped and signed, and includes the hash of the previous value to chain the sequence of values together and prevent even the source to retroactively change an output package without being detected. Currently implemented calls are listed below. Users submitting a request need to provide the record generation time in POSIX format (number of seconds since midnight UTC, January 1, 1970 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time for more information and http://www.epochconverter.com http://www.epochconverter.com for an online timestamp converter.) Current Record (or next closest): http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/<timestamp> Previous Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/previous/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/previous/<timestamp> Next Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/next/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/next/<timestamp> Last Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/last http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/last Start Chain Record: http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/start-chain/<timestamp> http://beacon.nist.gov/rest/record/start-chain/<timestamp> If a request for a next or previous record results in no record found, a 404 response is returned. Schema The data source schema for the NIST Beacon REST API described above can be viewed by clicking here. Note: Not all browsers will display this file appropriately, you may get better results by saving the file locally and using an editor of your choice. Certificate NIST Beacon is currently using an X.509 certificate with the Federal Common Policy CA as the ultimate root authority. The certificate is available here Viewer The example application below uses the REST API described above to navigate the data. To visit an arbitrary time value please click on the input control containing the date and time value to display a calendar to select the desired value. Beacon Record Version: Version 1.0 Frequency: 60 seconds Time: 09/07/2014 6:30 am (1410096600) Seed Value: D8645389CECB0948DF9266CE19DC7AB87A4DBA9DDB32AF3BE7C9F032F72A6248 2868B39B1E4BAFB6078D96B8E6CD83F34AD2BB281C3425DF870D3AC280F81898 Previous Output: EC17539B455E19D687419F47B8B88A4ED6094881DEA48D655A4B0A93401D928F 2E94EE2E1C91FC42ACA19DB5B3101FAFAEADC4F73E5233827310688341EC7CBE Signature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utput Value: 90834F49D882948AE0C105FD13F82B2660DDEF5486BB0D0F081F3B77AB178BD5 831AD800551EA1645BA3F47CBA63526F3175FA192196AE7188D02EAC7249FF4C Status: 0: Normal Last updated On: May 13, 2014 Created On: December 08, 2012 Disclaimer Notice & Privacy Statement / Security Notice ---------------- Line 70799 and between the little chambers were five cubits; and the threshold of the gate by the porch of the gate within was one reed. 40:8 He measured also the porch of the gate within, one reed. 40:9 Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits; and the porch of the gate was inward. 40:10 And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure: and the posts had one measure on this side and on that side. 40:11 And he measured the breadth of the entry of the gate, ten cubits; and the length of the gate, thirteen cubits. 40:12 The space also before the little chambers was one cubit on this side, and the space was one cubit on that side: and the little chambers were six cubits on this side, and six cubits on that side.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road.” I love watching how systems of people operate. Fascinating stuff. Over and over, what I see in U.S. history is somebody who has a real problem that needs solved -- perhaps a gnat is flying around the house. The problem looks really sexy on TV. Politicians can thump the table and get lots of votes. Then these politicians get elected and suddenly we're building industrial flame-throwers to get rid of gnats. "But it's only for the gnats!" they say. And it is -- for about 20 years. Then it slowly becomes a tool like any other. Part 3 of this story is the most interesting. It's where the rest of us figure out how we've gotten screwed and start clamoring to have something done about it. But nothing happens. Democracy's bug? That every generation feels like it is special, and that the problems it is having are special. So they "have" to start heavily mucking around with the system. Most every time, these fixes work -- until they don't. Then we're stuck with them forever. I don't have an answer here, just venting.

guard-of-terra 12y ago

Now that's a Kin-Dza-Dza grade police force.

selimthegrim 12y ago
Come on down voters! Don't you read SF?
smutticus 12y ago
I love old Soviet era sci-fi! The reason you're being downvoted is because sarcasm doesn't add to the discussion.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Sometimes it is the only method. You won't get far trying to explain that taking money from their owner is bad. This ship has sailed. So now the working way is sarcasm, shunning and ostracism. Making it personal for people who invented and enacted this system.

lukasm 12y ago

Well, I guess this is one extra reason to stay in Europe and start business here.

kghose 12y ago
It's SO much better there!
- psykovsky 12y ago
  Where's the sarcasm tag?

icantthinkofone 12y ago

This story is so unbelievably biased and one-sided, it confirms my suspicions of the value of the Washington Post anymore. Carrying $75K in cash around should raise anyone's suspicions as to the purpose, no matter what the carrier claims. Think about it. Why would YOU carry $75K in cash? The obvious and well known reasons are, it's the most secure way to fund drug and terrorist cells without leaving a trail. The Post even acknowledges that! "There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals ... " But not until they make their accusations and end the above sentence with: "... and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police departments." Note that only a sixth of those seizures were ever challenged but the Post claims it's only because it's too expensive to do so. They do NOT question whether it's because it's drug or terrorist funding (and I will state that it is). Just unbelievable what these formerly trustworthy newspapers are churning out nowadays.

ck2 12y ago
Wait, wait - SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT. If it is so obviously a crime in progress, get a freaking warrant. This is how everything erodes. One day you will have $2000 on you in cash to buy a used car and they will seize that too. Also note the part where they found nothing after a warrantless search so they just posted it for other police to harass them later.
zorrb 12y ago
Look, I think most reasonable people would agree the Washington Post is pretty much a joke at this point. However, I have toe vehemently disagree with your rationale. This line of thinking has to stop. Just because YOU can't think of any reason to carry "large" sums of money doesn't mean there IS no legitimate reason. Innocent until proven guilty, all that jazz. "Think about it. Why would YOU, wear sagging jeans?" Also, yes, it IS ridiculously expensive to challenge a seizure of money. This happens ALL OF THE TIME in the south, where cops do illegal searches, find money and say DRUG MONEY DRUG MONEY, and 99% of people are SCREWED because the system is stacked against them.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago

marquis 12y ago

The New Yorker's take on this last year: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

coldcode 12y ago

All that will happen from this is that criminals will find ways to move money without cash (like bitcoins, etc) and the only people caught will be non-criminals or really stupid criminals. Everything evolves in reaction to pressures.

psykovsky 12y ago
They sould start impounding cars. Those are weapons.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  There was a case a while back where someone was convicted of being an accessory to a serious crime and jailed for an extended period because they lent their car to the perp, who - inexplicably - didn't mention it was going to be used for criminal activity. The prosecutor argued 'No car, no crime', and the jury bought it. To me that's like arguing 'No clothes, no crime' and jailing the board of Walmart for selling underwear. Or 'No food, no crime' and jailing the staff of a nearby diner.
  - psykovsky 12y ago
    Stupid, ain't it? ;)
maxxxxx 12y ago
The real criminals just use big banks for money laundering: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-...

shin_lao 12y ago

I don't see what the problem is. In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration. It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.

tehwebguy 12y ago
You don't see a problem with those laws?
- pyvpx 12y ago
  most people don't
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    Perhaps because most people don't readily have access to thousands of euro/dollars/etc, and thus see less problem with assuming anyone who does is up to no good.
- shin_lao 12y ago
  Absolutely not. Why would I want to pay in cash? It's neither convenient nor safe.
  - ProAm 12y ago
    It's silly to force an unnecessary third party into a business transaction if you dont need to. Money exists for a reason. Cash is king.
    - serf 12y ago
      Beyond any reason, I agree with this most. Our current way of living insists on third party participation during even A -> B trades, it's ridiculous and inefficient.
  - clamprecht 12y ago

wheaties 12y ago

The fourth amendment, protection against unlawful search and seizure, was put into the constitution as a direct consequence of the very laws that civil forfeiture was based upon. That makes me sad. How can we, as a society, function in which we've incentivized our own police force to take property from our citizens without proof of a crime? It just doesn't make sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

danschumann 12y ago
This is a dangerous precedent that obviously does not have enough oversight if they are willing to take $2,500 moving money that a son received from his father.

clarry 12y ago

It is sad. Yet people like Gavin Seim and Adam Kokesh get a lot of shit for standing up. "have you seen the video where the guy just keeps repeating, 'Am I being detained? Am I free to go?' what an asshole" And anyone defending those people is instantly labelled a gun freak.

LyndsySimon 12y ago
Kokesh is particular is extremely unpopular in the gun community.

kohanz 12y ago

This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually need to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well? Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wrong-doing on the part of the cash carriers.

kghose 12y ago
I share your sentiments. I'm more ambivalent about this process than I should be, as an admirer of the checks and balances in our constitution. I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought. However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust 'em or don't use 'em just because) and this is how they buy a house or buy a car or go from one state to another with their possessions. Now, here's where my ambivalence comes from: do we let the money laundering go because a few of these are false positives? Or do we accept the false positives because it serves the greater good because it catches or causes attrition for money launderers? I think electronic or check transfers are a rational solution to the problem at hand and so folks should use that. But I'm still ambivalent. Constitution. Checks and balances.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  You realize what this sounds like to someone without access to enough cash on hand to smooth over the insanity of our banking process? "Screw you, I've got mine."
  - kohanz 12y ago
    I certainly don't read it in that way. Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft). The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?

MattyRad 12y ago

I live in Reno, so with Burning Man recently I saw a disproportionate number of traffic stops off the freeway. The interesting thing about Burning Man, however, is that all vehicles are marked by the tell-tale dust from the Playa. Cops can easily identify which cars should be pulled over. I've seen cops rooting around in dust marked cars while concerned Burners watch. I can't stress enough how important it is to know your rights [1]. Never, ever consent to a search. Never, ever "talk" to police (insofar as to assert your rights). They are not your friends. You are being pulled over because you are being accused of a crime. And all too often they will use word games and intimidation to get you to "cooperate" (forfeit your fifth amendment rights). Even though Burners might be less likely to have large sums of money in their car (cash money is forbidden in trading at Burning Man), suspicion of drugs is a likely story for a stop and seizure. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8

vhost- 12y ago
I can back this person up. I lived off Pyramid Highway (Nevada 445), a main route taken to Burning Man, and I would see cars pulled over in front of my house by the police all the time after the event. The traffic stops usually lasted 30 or so minutes and almost like clockwork they were searched. Even before I was more politically minded, these stops struck me as odd.
lesterbuck 12y ago
Where is the Burning Man Auto Wash service? With powerful vacuums for that special "no residual seeds" detailing? Or at least the Burning Man Avoid The Man infoproduct? It must not be common knowledge if so many cars hit the highway with dust.

fiatmoney 12y ago

There is a word for armed men who prowl highways looking for valuables to seize.

einrealist 12y ago

So what is proof that the money is not linked with any crime? Does a envelope count, sealed by a notary with a letter that explains the purpose?

DominikR 12y ago

Why doesn't your society resist? Parts of your police is now equiped like an army on a battlefield and money can be seized without any reasoning. And then there's NSA spying, torture and drone executions of suspected terrorists (even US citizens) without trial. If someone would have told me 20 years ago, that the US will turn into this, I would have thought that this person must be insane. Now it wouldn't even surprise me, if the US turns into a giant gulag in the next 10 years. Edit: I wonder how these policemen justify their actions, after all they are going after their own people.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ejr 12y ago
Because resistance is futile. The machinery of government explicitly favours authority and that very authority was given to them willingly by the voting - or non voting - masses. It is the authority that everyone, including the plundered, believe they must have in order to keep them safe. Resistance takes courage and a willingness to lose everything you care about, such as your prideful opinion, free time or an hour of your attention. The sacrifice is too great for the overwhelming majority of the populace comfortable with what they have and a chronic aversion to all things unpleasant. I've lost count of how many people I've seen change the channel when news of war or police brutality come on. When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we will see change.
- stanleydrew 12y ago
  When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we're all screwed. People should take at least a little time to make a considered decision about where the government is headed. Some things are dangerous when they become too easy. Like obtaining a driver's license, or purchasing a gun.
- mindslight 12y ago
  The non-voting gave no such authority. They decided that being able to choose whether the assholes had red or blue hats wasn't even worth ten minutes of their time, and opted to not take part in the farce. On the other hand, the voting (even if they voted Libertarian/Paul) supported the election system itself, and signaled their agreement to be ruled by the inevitable outcome.

solutionviatech 12y ago

--------Can we solve part of this problem through a smartphone app? ----------------- Here are my initial thoughts on how it would work, feel free to comment on better ways to implement it / other features 1) If you get pulled over by a cop, you start up the smart phone app and place the phone in the windshield mount (the mount should have power so the phone battery doesn't die) 2) When the app starts, it immediately starts recording (or streaming) audio and video 3) The app quickly connects/matches you to a real lawyer versed in your state's laws 4) Your newly matched lawyer can listen in on the subsequent conversation between you and the police officer. Or alternatively, the lawyer could act as a buffer and do all the talking with the police officer. Benefits of the app: 5) Since the police officer knows he's being recorded, he may act nicer and more appropriately. 6) If the cop does try to "play games" such as holding the person without arresting, then the lawyer can quickly "step in" and ask the cop if his client is free to leave or whether he is under arrest. Problems that I'm not sure how to solve: 7) Maybe the cop will tell the driver to step out of the car and around to the back of the vehicle - with the motivation of getting out of earshot of the lawyer/smartphone app. 8) Looking through a cynical lens, this app may face scrutiny by cop unions opposed to it - in how to shut it down

javajosh 12y ago
It's a good idea, but it hinges entirely on streaming at least audio, as it hinges on getting real-time help of a lawyer. It also assumes that there are lots of lawyers out there sitting at a computer and willing to listen to police convos, and step in, for free. Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I don't know.
- lsc 12y ago
  >Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I don't know. There are a bunch of business models. I mean, you could price it like insurance. I pay a monthly fee and you guarantee someone is there to get my ass out of a sling if required. Heck, you could price it like insurance, too; charge me based on perceived risk, and raise my rates if I actually use it. I mean, I carry liability insurance against civil suits... Maybe you could talk me into paying for similar insurance against criminal charges?

zorrb 12y ago

Reading through these comments, I see quite a bit of ignorance. A lot along the lines of, "Why would you ever carry cash!?" Which fortunately a lot of cogent comment have successfully answered. Another is, "Why would you carry that much cash it's so RISKY?" As someone whose had to carry around five figure sums around quite a bit in the past because of my profession (hint: it rhymes with "rambling") my far and away, it's not even close, fear is having the money taken by cops from an illegal search. This fear is justified because I've never been mugged or robbed and no one I know who was in the same line of work has either. But I know MANY people who have had funds seized by cops. ESPECIALLY in the south. Actually the horror stories I personally know about have happened only in the south. Usually it's the cop seeing an out of state license. Pull you over, lies and says you were "swerving" or refuses to give you a reason. Then forces you out of the car, takes the money and sayonara.

PeterisP 12y ago
Are you speaking about the seizure process described in the article or just plain old theft?
- zorrb 12y ago
  Theft under the guise of, "oh this must be drug money". I think the article mentions the average amount taken is something like ~$8k. That's 8-10months of legal fees. AND IF YOU DON'T LIVE where they took it, you'd have to GO THERE to go to court. That's why in places like Missouri they love pulling over out of state licenses because they know if you live in California you aren't going to be coming back to contest their shenanigans.
oh_sigh 12y ago
Why couldn't you deposit the money in a bank, and withdraw it as close to the casino as possible?
- ams6110 12y ago
  Bank deposits and withdrawals of over $10,000 (?) trigger additional paperwork, FBI or IRS reports, etc.

briandh 12y ago

People upset by this (as I am) may be interested in EndForfeiture.com, a very slick brochure-style site you can send to your friends. The organization behind it is the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has performed ample pro bono litigation against civil asset forfeiture abuse. If you choose to donate to them (which I encourage), note that they do legal work in other areas that you may or may not agree with, so you should take a look at that first. (Note: I am not affiliated with IJ, I just admire their work.)

runeks 12y ago

> “Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. If that was your intention then why on earth did you allow seizures from civilians? Seems to me that the best way to seize a million dollars from a cocaine dealer is to arrest him if you have reasonable suspicion, and if he's convicted, seize the money. But of course, it's a lot easier to just take his money without being able to prove your suspicion. :\

stopthewar 12y ago

As long as the war on drugs continues to be waged, injustices like this will continue to happen. Civil forfeiture, SWAT team raids, mandatory miniums, etc. It seems to me that our society is so well off, it has to make up criminal laws, criminalizing victimless, ordinary activities, so that the police and courts have something to constantly do, so they can fund their operations. Another problem is that much of the rest of the world follows suit, usually because they have no other choice. They are pressured through the UN (basically an extension of US policy), sanctions, aid, etc. It is these actions by police that truly terrify. Foreign organizations don't even hold a candle to the terrorism of our domestic police and law enforcement agencies. Some may point out that freedom of the press/speech still exists, but to that, I will point out that our government has realized a long time ago that it does not need to control speech to control people. In fact, many public channels, especially TV are already controlled by the people in favor of government (see FOX news). By allowing such pretend freedoms as freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, it makes it much harder to fight all the abuses. Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights has been decimated and rendered powerless, especially in the last few decades. As another poster here pointed out, however, the cases in proportion to the total population affect a very small percentage of the population, and in most cases, they target minorities who have less credibility and power to fight them in our racist society. Injustice is everywhere in our society and there seems to be little incentive or even means by regular people to fight it. How does it feel to live in such an unjust society, one that persecutes not only its own people, but also invades other countries based on lies? It's infuriating, helpless, depressing, and most of all, terrifying.

slowcode 12y ago

I like to use cash, and I keep a tally sheet and receipts with me when I travel, along with any withdrawal slips pertaining to the money. I can prove to a penny where it came from, where it was spent, on what, and it will equate to what is left. But I get the impression that's not enough. As soon as they see cash, it's theirs. And the thing is, I have plenty more in the bank. So if I am stopped and any cash or items are seized, the first thing I'm going to do is call my attorney and go about my business until I have sued the jurisdiction, the officer(s), and anyone else connected to the seizure back into the stone age. I retired young after a successful career. Lots of tattoos. Gold Rolex, long hair, under 50 - I am an unscrupulous officer's wet dream. But I am sober, intelligent and law abiding. I never break the law and my driving record is spotless because of it. Pull me over and you're hunting, because you didn't see me weave. Bring it. And for those of you who are ready to say, "F you - you're rich", or whatever - spare me. I am exactly the kind of citizen who will eventually bring this kind of thing to a halt. I can afford to take it the Supreme Court. And I will do so with a relentless determination. The police to me are a threatening force. If I need them, I'll go ahead and call. Otherwise, mind your own business and we'll be fine. So far in 47 years I have never needed them. And I know to a certainty I don't need them violating my rights.

maxxxxx 12y ago
When you read the reports it becomes clear that they won't go after people like you. they go after people who either don't know their rights or simply cannot afford to fight back. If you want to do something about this then help some of the people in this situation take their case to court.

BrandonM 12y ago

Want to help? I went to http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ http://whoismyrepresentative.com/ and entered my ZIP code. It took me to the page of my representative and senators. I submitted a link to the article and a message indicating that I would like to see the law supporting Stop and Seize repealed. I said some other stuff about being a gainfully employed citizen ashamed to call myself American due to the encroachment on our rights. If this makes you sick, tell your congresspeople, and tell your friends to do the same. We do not get to have the rights we want without declaring that we want them.

declan 12y ago

Three thoughts: * Asset forfeiture abuses by police have been going on for at least a generation. Here's an excerpt from House Judiciary testimony by an African American gardener who dared to carry $9K in cash in 1991 to buy plants at a nursery. He had it all (surprise!) confiscated by cops. The fact that it's been 23 years and the abuses are worse, not better, is telling. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he... And here's a note I sent to Politech on the topic back in 1998: http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html * Contrary to some claims in this thread, there are reasons to transport significant sums of $10K+ in cash. Contractors, tree removal companies, landscape installers, grading/excavation firms, etc. can charge that much for work and, I'm told by my SF peninsula neighbors who have had work done, often offer cash discounts. (Which means, of course, both the homeowner and the contractor would be transporting large cash amounts sequentially.) * I suspect that governments would, to a first approximation, prefer that their own citizens engage only in traceable, trackable, non-anonymous electronic transactions with closely regulated financial firms. This is already happening: cash now represents only 14% of dollar payments by value. Though my favorite example in this area is this proposal that bubbled up inside the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; I wrote about it for Wired in 1999: http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121 "The magnetic strip could visibly record when a bill was last withdrawn from the banking system. A carry tax could be deducted from each bill upon deposit according to how long the bill was in circulation... Systems would have to be put in place at banks and automatic teller machines to read bills, assess the carry tax, and stamp the bills 'current...'"