38 ms·

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

602 points by rl3 11y ago

masterleep 11y ago
Of course, this is unlawful, but that doesn't really seem to stop the government these days.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Civil forfeiture is entirely within the legal system, provided for by democratically appointed laws, upheld time and time again by judges. There is no twist of language that makes this "unlawful." Civil forfeiture is a facet of law. As such, it is also subject to being eliminated by legislatures. As the article mentions, New Mexico did this. That this has not happened at the federal level is in fact not an indication of a misbehaving executive branch. It is an indication that Congressman do not find the issue relevant to their reelection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...
ekianjo 11y ago
The important bit: > he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black person on that part of the train.
- hippich 11y ago
  race-card popular lately, but civil forfeiture is a problem here. More race you bring - less efficient you get with fighting real issue at hands. If you do little research - people of all races and sexes were hurt by that, and local/federal police benefitted from it.
  - ndespres 11y ago
    Please don't do a dismissive handwave over what's really an important element to this story. That the victim is a person of color is absolutely relevant to this story; it demonstrates a bias on behalf of the DEA agent, or perhaps simply a cynicism: they know what they can get away with in the eyes of the public. Of COURSE race is an important element of how law enforcement interacts with citizens. Race is part of these issues. The very term "race card" is offensive and marginalizing, even if you didn't mean it that way.
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      > a person of color There's one of your problems. Am I a person of no colour? Your (and this isn't a direct attack on you) use of language contributes to the situation while it is trying to be softly softly.
      - ndespres 11y ago
        We should not define people in terms of what they are "not" or lump them into a group of who they are different from ("minority"). So no, if you are white you can be just that. Maybe it doesn't have as much play outside the U.S. but the term PoC seems to work well here. For the whole semantic argument I'll point to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color .
        SixSigma 11y ago
        we're even more positive, blacks are called black. No messing about. We also have IC codes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes Code Ethnicity IC1 White - North European IC2 White - South European IC3 Black IC4 Asian (in the UK Asian refers to people from the Indian subcontinent like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal) IC5 Chinese, Japanese, or other South East Asian IC6 Arabic or North African IC9 Unknown And, just to polish things off, the European Union has declared that there is no such thing as "race".
    - konradb 11y ago
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    You say it's not about race, but let me point you to the story of a Texas freelance racist who was supported by many racist cops and citizens for a long time. I have lived in Texas all my life, and he is a household name among people who care about civil rights. I don't mention this to say civil forfeiture is necessarily racist, as much as to point out that it is a tool entirely too attractive to them. And they are using it as much as they can, here. http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/coleman_convicted.html http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/coleman_convicted.ht...
    - hippich 11y ago
      i bet america has racism issues, but civil forfeiture is completely different issue. and trying to bring up racism problem into it makes it only more complicated - suddenly you get "racist cops" who probably, after reading this article will not think about "wow, forfeiture rules are stupid", but rather "huh, so they caught black guy, he probably was doing narcotics" or similar bs. Fight one problem at a time.
      - spacemanmatt 11y ago
        >Fight one problem at a time. Strongly disagreed. And for the reason that they don't occur in a vacuum. Racism and police abuse have a very long history.
- Zikes 11y ago
  The important bit: > The agent found Rivers's cash, still in a bank envelope. Yeah, the police have a severe race issue, but civil asset forfeiture is being used against anybody that has anything worth taking.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  The key part for me is right here - "A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why." Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for the cop to be asking it. We, as a society, need to walk this all back starting right here at this point in the process. The forfeiture itself is so clearly unconstitutional that I can't imagine how even a loose constructionist can twist it to make it ok. Much less someone like Thomas or Scalia. Ugh.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW) belongs in jail for a long time. What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".
    - authatheist 11y ago
      Well, the people who make the laws are, by definition, above them. Government is pretty much just a society-wide extortion racket. The ultimate mafia.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      This is why the individuals involved in these acts need to have their names and faces splashed in the news, and their homes picketed by protesters, for starters. Individual discretion, but with collective protection and anonymity. That's not going to work.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that the officials crossed the limits in basically everything in case what's reported is completely factual. And honestly, having cash in an envelope should be something completely normal no matter where you are. In Japan having tons of cash on you is not frown upon by anyone, because cash is used for everything and accepted everywhere even where cards aren't (and people are not afraid of being robbed).
simoncion 11y ago
I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations. After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."' Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects? I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically, if the officer really wanted to search and was otherwise barred from executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.
- MCRed 11y ago
  By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate from its owner. This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.) That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants. In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?
mr_luc 11y ago
I'm sure that this is a valued asset in the fight against crime ... ... but as this story illustrates, it's so shockingly immoral as to constitute robbery. Shut it down.
- MCRed 11y ago
  I'm not aware of any instances where it was used to fight crime. Seriously, not one.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    shrug Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes. I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot agree that forfeiture has never been used to fight crime. Much like it's pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet has swept up evidence of at least one credible terror plot[0], it's pretty clear that at least one instance of forfeiture use was in the service of crime elimination or punishment. [0] Before you downvote, understand my stance. The NSA dragnet is reprehensible and clearly dangerous to the integrity of the Republic. However, the dragnet is so wide that it can't help but catch some of what the NSA is looking for. See what I'm getting at?
    - cnvogel 11y ago
      I see what you're getting at. But I also am convinced that, would you present this on public television or anything with a similar broad distribution, you'd persuade many people to support civil forfeiture (or the NSA dragnet), because it's obviously effective against crime! In the general public, only a minority seems to still be interested that means are somehow proportionate to the ends. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! INCARCERATE EVERYONE!
      - simoncion 11y ago
        You're making an argument that I don't disagree with and that also doesn't address anything in my comment. :) I was making a narrow statement that addressed MCRed's comment. My footnote was presented to make my position abundantly clear to all who would read my comment.
DigitalSea 11y ago
Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of these draconian laws around asset forfeiture. The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p... We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.
- hinkley 11y ago
  I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.
  - minot 11y ago
    Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate? Where do we draw the line?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Can I do the same with a business? Steve Jackson Games? Delorean?
    - fiatmoney 11y ago
MCRed 11y ago
I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..." I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then. This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim government is legitimate and in the best interest if the people when you have its agents engaging in (literal) highway robbery. The argument at the time was that this was supposed to be for drugs. The whole basis of the drug war was that addiction is bad and thus to protect people, we need to get rid of drugs. OF course as the past century has shown this doesn't work (I'm including the prohibition era.) But worse, it has twisted around and is now being used to cause suffering in people. Let me give you an example: I went to the same high school as a guy who became an oncologist. Most of his patients were terminal. The DEA has decided that doctors giving terminally ill people drugs to relieve them of their pain is some sort of scourge on society... so they track how often they are prescribed... and then they average that and go after doctors who "over prescribe". When they went after him-- he had a small practice-- they came in guns blazing, arrested everyone, stole all of his valuables, and his computers, stole the money from his bank and brokerage accounts. Stole the money his wife had. Stole the money his employees (most of whom were not wealthy.) He was unable to afford a lawyer because they stole his money. Pre-trial they made many assertions and presented many documents he believe were dishonest or forgeries, but he could not prove it because they stole his computers and they were "accidentally damaged". They certainly weren't returning them. They charged him and his wife, and told him that if they had to arrest his wife that she would be in jail as would he at lest a year before it came tot trial-- and so they'd place his kids with a permanent foster home. But if he took their plea, he would get a reduced sentence (possibly it was probation, but It think it was 6 months in jail, plus probation) and they wouldn't charge his wife and employees. Yes, they literally held his wife, kids and employees hostage (literally threatened if you want to be pedantic) unless he would admit to doing something illegal, even though he was just giving terminally ill people pain medication. I think this whole affair is criminal, denying him adequate counsel by stealing his money, piling absurd charges on top of absurd charges to put others in jeopardy to manipulate him, it's all criminal. He took the deal. His family was wiped out-- as part of the "deal" he gave up that money, and now the DEA is using it to buy toys for themselves... literally profiting from the crime. His family is in shambles because he can't practice medicine anymore. Here's what's really absurd. The idea that terminally ill patients shouldn't be able to get take any drugs they want. Even if they risk overdose, it's a quality of life issue and effectively denying them is nothing short of torture. They shouldn't even need a doctors prescription. This is a fake crime created to exert control over the populace. And you know what's worse? Too many of the other people who went to this high school and knew him thought he deserved it... because obviously they wouldn't charge him if he weren't guilty. How can I respect a government that practices this? How can I respect Reagan who signed this into law? Or clinton who didn't try and repeal it? Or Bush who didn't either? Or Obama who not only did nothing, but had Joe Biden as his running mate? How is this going to turn around? It's not until it starts getting painful. There are only a few ways to make things painful-- the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance. Another is the bullet box and revolutions rarely turn out well... but they were the only method our founders could see to prevent exactly this situation. ("It's a republic... if you can keep it"... we've lost it.) Finally is the soap box. I'm getting off of mine now.
imroot 11y ago
While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any opportunity to be released; that includes a plea agreement that includes no more jail time, but, generally also includes more financial obligations (probation, fine, license reinstatement) against the defendant. We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during his shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion of the 4th amendment, nexus centers, sweeping overreaches of the third party doctrine, stingrays, and mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother would be proud.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.
  - thedufer 11y ago
    Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
    - itistoday2 11y ago
      > Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.
VieElm 11y ago
Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  Oh it has been, many many times. I can't explain the jurisprudence behind it, but this is nothing new.
- MCRed 11y ago
  It has been, but it lost. I don't remember the case offhand though. That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.
- remarkEon 11y ago
  Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
  - sukilot 11y ago
    That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime. It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.
- 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
andrewchambers 11y ago
It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.
- notdiminoten 11y ago
  Where else in the world could WBC and the KKK exist? Just look at how the neo Nazis are treated in Germany. The US fucks it up royally and regularly, but in different ways from the rest of the world.
- socceroos 11y ago
  This. And while the USA purports to be the leaders in freedom, we see similar erosion of freedom and liberty in other Socialist/Democratic societies like Australia, UK and France. The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing. People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back. "Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."
- adventured 11y ago
  The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg NY Times or Washington Post). When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it's very difficult as a citizen in one state, to be aware of what a national agency (the DEA) is doing across the entire nation, unless the national news outlets are writing about it. While a typical American is going about their day to day life, living a local life (some town, in some county, in some state), the world's largest, most powerful federal / national government is aggressively attempting to undermine them in hundreds of ways large and small. The US has a federal government that is financially the size of the entire economy of Germany, doing nothing but passing more laws, economic regulations, taxes, et al. to strangle liberty as much as they can and increase their power. There is very little else they do, or need to do. What does a beast that large do? Protect itself, entrench its own interests, grab more money, write more laws - there is nothing else for it to do most of the time. Try doing something about that, or even thinking about how you can stop it, if you're an average citizen. It boggles the mind. Oh yeah, while you're at it, deal with the fact that the US military (which the NSA belongs to) is now increasingly taking aim at the US domestic population, you know, the world's most powerful military with a $600 billion budget. Now compare this situation to the complexity faced by, say, Finland (5.4 million people) in trying to reign in or adjust its government system. The US has something like 200,000 pages of federal regulations; try fixing that, while the vast dedicated law passing machine is busy passing thousands of new regulations. It isn't going to stop expanding and over-reaching until it crashes, choking itself to death.
aftbit 11y ago
One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash. However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.
- rahimnathwani 11y ago
  This is an interesting point. If the only way to avoid submission of information to your bank is to forego banking services, then this is not a meaningful choice, and you're not giving up the information voluntarily. It is analogous to the point a judge made in a case here: http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373 http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373 "The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law. The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful choice."
- sukilot 11y ago
  The law is rather clear, if dismal: privacy is not a right, only surprise violations of privacy are illegal. Once the government starts abusing people enough , it is no longer an expectation of privacy. See also the prohibition against "unusual" punishment.
nekopa 11y ago
This sounds like the beginning of a modern day Robin Hood movie.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Robin Hood did not steal from the poor, if I remember correctly.
  - nekopa 11y ago
    Normally most Robin Hood movies start off showing the bad guys, the Sheriffs men, stealing from the poor. It takes a while for Robin to show up, and it seems that in real life, this will never be the case - as $3.9 billion worth of seizures is going to motivate the cops and Feds to fight any changes to this legislation tooth and nail.
steve19 11y ago
I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly).... ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry confiscated. Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned should be pretty simple. Print out a bank statement (he said he withdrew it from an out of state bank) and take it to the nearest DEA (or US Marshal?) office. On the other hand, if he could not furnish a bank statement, has a history of drug dealing or other criminal activity I would be no more outraged than when a local drug dealer has his car confiscated. (Although I would still be against the law in principle)
- woah 11y ago
  They stole it, and they will not give it back. If someone is mugged on your block, is the first thing you do to sit there and wonder whether they are completely free of sin?
- daeken 11y ago
  > ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. The Washington Post confirmed that he was never tried for any crime, let alone convicted. The legal system of the US is built on the premise that guilt must be shown, and innocence presumed. They didn't even attempt to show he was guilty -- instead, they just stole his money.
- koube 11y ago
  I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system. In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.
- 11y ago
jmstout 11y ago
Related: If you haven't seen John Oliver's segment on civil asset forfeiture, you should really check it out - https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks
- tempestn 11y ago
  That was great. I'm going to have to start watching LWT regularly.
dankohn1 11y ago
For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.
- api 11y ago
  So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?
  - a3n 11y ago
    Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."
    - dankohn1 11y ago
      3rd party voting is largely a wasted vote in First Pass the Post [0] systems like the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
      - a3n 11y ago
        You missed the point. Of course whatever 3rd party you vote for won't make it. But it's a registered vote, and it takes a vote away from the two parties. How is voting for a Rep or Dem not a wasted vote, considering what they're doing to us? 3rd parties aren't fucking us (yet). Vote for whoever isn't fucking us, not because they might win (they won't), but to register the protest.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        No he didn't miss the point, you did. You didn't read his link and your comment shows that.
        11y ago
Animats 11y ago
When the Heritage Foundation[1] and the ACLU [2] are both against it, you know it's really bad. [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...
- jMyles 11y ago
  They're often on the same side of domestic policy.
AwesomeGriffin 11y ago
I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same reasons.
- adventured 11y ago
  The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact. The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system. Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're implying. In fact it's because of that, that most Americans are unaware of what organizations like the DEA are doing. The US is less corrupt than France for example: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
  - visarga 11y ago
    > a mostly still intact and strong property rights system The practice of civil forfeiture on people who can't defend legally, like this guy, sure doesn't indicate that. Maybe for the HSBC guys who laundered $378.4 billion over several years there will be a small fine, their profit for a few months. But no bank was forfeited. No board members were sent to jail for it. It seems property rights are solid, if you are rich.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Yes, the DEA forfeiture racket is vile, and yes it needs to be stopped. Nobody should undercut how terrible what they're doing is. The reason the US still ranks high on the low corruption index, is because you have to take the value of the whole, not just one small problem such as this. It impacts an extraordinarily small percentage of Americans today, and the dollar sums are extraordinarily small in such a large economy. Put another way, on that 100 point corruption scale, the DEA program would represent a negative deduction of 2 or 3 points. What's actually important here, is stopping it before it gets larger. If they don't stop it, it will get much bigger, and graduate from being a small problem to being a serious threat to the average citizen. If we're talking about rights violations, civil forfeitures are a joke compared to the war on drugs for example and the incarceration that has been going on since the 1970s.
greendata 11y ago
If the police continue to allow asset seizure eventually an enterprising politician and banker will find a way to seize police pensions. There will be no public outcry. Once you institutionalize theft at this level it doesn't stay put--it grows.
- task_queue 11y ago
  The banker or politician will never be affected by this, why would they try to upset the police unions?
  - greendata 11y ago
    Many US cities are near bankrupt and probably a lot more will be in the next ten years. There will be enormous political pressure to cut costs. One way to cut costs is to reduce pensions or fail to fulfill pension promises. I don't advocate this and in fact I think the police are being setup in some ways. By allowing some police to engage in what looks like theft the general public will be amenable to pension cuts in the future. Just see Detroit as an example of our possible future.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      I've never seen police unions on the chopping block. After the most recent crisis, teacher unions and other government worker unions were paraded around as needing to be fixed.
bcook 11y ago
I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.
- crystaln 11y ago
  Why are you asking this question? The answer is none of your business. One should be able to travel with as much cash as one chooses.
  - bcook 11y ago
    My point was; if you carry cash in large amounts and lose it, then you did not prepare. Carrying around your life savings in cash is a very bad decision, because _anyone_ can take it and you have very little recourse. I ask because there are a few ways to avoid this particular situation; fix government overreach or stop carrying your life savings in cash. Doing both seems safest, but if we can only do one, then itis obvious which is easiest.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Because what's right and what's sensible are two different things. Bear in mind that you could also get robbed the old-fashioned way - if you reach into your envelope full of money to withdraw any cash there's a small but non-zero possibility that someone will notice and get the idea to take it for themselves. This is why people used to carry traveler's checks before plastic became ubiquitous - people know that carrying a bunch of cash as a tourist in an unfamiliar place is unwise.
    - yarou 11y ago
      I think you are completely missing the point of this article. This isn't about whether or not one should carry large amounts of cash with them. Rather, this is about an abuse of power by a large government entity that doesn't seem to be held accountable for its actions.
MrBlue 11y ago
Solution: bitcoin.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Cause DPR/SR didn't have coins seized and auctioned?
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    Technically, using a brainwallet could have prevented that unless they tortured the guy over it.
  - jpindar 11y ago
    When the cops pull someone over they have no way of knowing whether the person owns any bitcoin.
a3n 11y ago
"You make it, we'll take it." Thugs.
dba7dba 11y ago
I heard a truly tragic story related to the civil forfeiture rule. Heard from a friend who heard from a friend. The family hired an older lady (immigrant, but lived many years in US) who came to clean their house a few times a week. She shared that she had been divorced from her husband but in the process ended up with the house. Being retired with no income (and probably no pension of any kind other than social security which is not enough), she decided to rent a spare room to someone. Guess what. The dude renting it turned out to be a drug dealer (or was it just getting caught smoking weed?). When HE was arrested, somehow the law enforcement (not sure if local PD or DEA) made a connection to HER house. The house was seized. This older lady ended up having to stay with friends and going around working as cleaning/care-taker. Because her house was suddenly taken away from her, she had no other means of supporting her later years in life. When I first heard it, I was like WHAT~~~? This was a few years ago. And than I started reading about local PD seizing private property on minor charges.
- sukilot 11y ago
  The PD actually usually skips the charges. It is literally highway robbery: trooper pulls over a car, searches it, takes the money.
  - iribe 11y ago
    This is no different than paying bribes to third world police.
    - maze-le 11y ago
      In fact it is... I've been to Geogia, in the Caucasus-Mountains, not the southern US-State. There for example, it is common for Highway-Police to set up checkpoints, and if you are a foreigner, you can be sure to pay them some bucks, 25$, 50$, 100$ somewhere in that dimension. To be sure, this is 'illegal'... No one cares to stop the police from doing that though, but it is still illegal. It is something entireley different, to always assume your car can be searched and all your cash can be stripped from you 'legally'....
steven2012 11y ago
This is why we can never, ever trust the government to "do the right thing". They have a law that should be used against real criminals, and instead they use it against regular innocent citizens. This is disgusting, and guess what: it's going to happen time and time again whenever we give the government too much power over our lives. And yet, it's happening right now.
ubersync 11y ago
Wouldn't happen with bitcoins.
- qrmn 11y ago
  Did happen with the Silk Road bitcoins, 30K BTC of which were auctioned off before the trial.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  It wouldn't have happened with a visa or mastercard either. Bitcoin has literally nothing to do with this.
  - exo762 11y ago
    Apparently it does happen with bank accounts. So no, your point does not stand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Seizures_of_funds_in_a_bank_account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... EDIT: In fact Bitcoin is much better protected against this. m-of-n signatures, brain wallets, hardware devices such as Tresor, etc.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
meric 11y ago
A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. I wonder if the DEA agent followed him on the train after having found out the bank had reported a bunch of "suspicious" cash withdrawals and given up the victim's identity.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  That's how parallel construction works.
sukilot 11y ago
Snap Judgment did a story this week about how the DEA will pressure child slave drug mules into becoming unpaid informants, and send them into large drug deals with armed cartel heavies, under threat of deportation, in exchange for fake promises of US citizenship.
visarga 11y ago
Wait, wasn't this how democracy was supposed to work in the Land of the Free(TM)? I mean, he had guilty money. I am sure those money passed through the hands of drug dealers at some point in their existence.
andrewstuart 11y ago
When public servants can directly fine citizens in cash, corruption pervades.
Qantourisc 11y ago
As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - nandemo 11y ago
    Can't you just refuse? Or can the police/DEA forcibly search a random person's belongings without a warrant?
- mindo 11y ago
  Personaly the more I read the less I'm interested to ever go to US. I admit, it's partly because of gun control (absence of it), police burtality and twisted laws, but at the same time I don't even know a single place I would to visit in US...
  - yc1010 11y ago
    I have traveled thru' most of the lower 48 states on several occasions, and have to say these were the most memorable trips of my life (I am from Ireland). I have been to all of Europe + some of middle east & far east & latin america, but the US does stand out when I look back with great food, nice people, and amazing wide open spaces and scenery and never got in trouble with law, tho I can imagine it happening (for example: I was constantly warned bye people to stay under speed limit , while in Ireland it is more of a guideline!), since socially the US is a tinderbox about to explode, which is obvious if you ever endup in a wrong part of any town. As for places to visit, where to start! Grand Canyon, White Sands, Las Vegas, LA, Appalachian Trail, Space Coast, Yosemite, San Francisco, Oregon, Savannah, DC, Key West, Texas.... shit the list goes on... now that I think of it the scale of the country and being able to drive everywhere is simply breathtaking, I have traveled thru more of the US than most Americans I spoke to and to be honest yee guys have a great country populated by mostly friendly and nice people. Yes I realize there must be exceptions, but I never got into any trouble travelling the breath and length of the US, and would recommend it to anyone, hell I be back in a few months for more :)
cbsmith 11y ago
"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year." Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative. This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one, not even greedy shareholders or executives with tons of stock options. Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".
- task_queue 11y ago
  When is it ever not nice to have $38m kicking around that isn't pre-allocated and can be used for whatever?
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    Unlike with local seizures, it can't be used for whatever.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      Source? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to read up on it anyway as I'm having trouble finding the pertinent information with Google.
      - cbsmith 11y ago
        Yeah, I don't have one that is explicit. All I know is that many of the rules around the use of civil forfeiture funds for local law enforcement are considered unusual because of the complete lack of regulation and oversight as to how that money can be spent (in a lot of towns, aside from fear of being run of of town, there really isn't much stopping the local sheriff from spending the money on hookers and blow). On the Federal spending side, military intelligence spending is kind of the elephant in the room for "light regulation & oversight" of spending, and even that has more checks and balances than local civil forfeiture.
weitzj 11y ago
The justice system is messed up, if the burdon of proof falls on the defendant.
mindo 11y ago
Taking whatever from whoever you want for no reason and making it impossible to get it back sounds like improved version of USSR communism doctrine. The only difference back then people could steal some back to restore the faith. Good job USA!
einrealist 11y ago
He should tell everyone that it was actually 32,000 USD that was taken from him.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vacri 11y ago
Stories like this show the 2nd Amendment defense of "it protects against tyrranical government" for the farce it is. Civil forfeiture isn't rare, and stories have been bubbling up for quite some time. Forget taxes, which actually go to providing you services, pretty much everyone can agree that 'civil forfeiture' is government agents stealing from the public, with no service offered in return. Where is the protection that 2nd Amendment is supposed to give from government?
bakhy 11y ago
The USA, the biggest anti-advertisement for democracy. I can only imagine what could happen to the guy if he was not a Roman.. eh, sorry, US citizen.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mirimir 11y ago
"The DEA" didn't steal Joseph Rivers' life savings. Some particular DEA agents did. And the theft was OKed by various other federal employees, who knew (or should have known) that he was entirely innocent. Two things come to mind. We can compensate Joseph for his loss through his gofundme campaign.[0] But we can also start naming the thieves. One of the accomplices is reportedly "Sean [R.] Waite, agent-in-charge of the DEA’s Albuquerque office".[1] Who are the rest? [0] http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc [1] http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791 http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
yc1010 11y ago
No one touched on it but what if "civil forfeiture" style of theft is being ignored all the way at the top since it helps push people from using cash to using credit and hence gives more power to the state and banks. In the past in US gold was seized, now cash is being seized, seems to me like a trend to herd people into the system where banks and credit card companies can take a cut of everything + make things easier for IRS + make things easier for NSA as you be leaving a digital trail. It is Orwellian beyond belief.
- authatheist 11y ago
  It's not only ignored at the top, it's just part of the nature of The Beast, for the reasons you mentioned and more.
winter_blue 11y ago
Can they take money from your bank account, though? If they can't, the solution seems to be keeping your money electronic as much as possible. (I personally never carry more than $80 around, partly because getting mugged is not uncommon in NYC.)
gadders 11y ago
I don't know how people can read stories like this and not at least feel some attraction for libertarianism.
petjuh 11y ago
Well, that could partly explain the wealth-gap - if black people are robbed of their money by the police of course they will have less.
jlebrech 11y ago
a real drug dealer would value $16k more than a DEA agents life. it's day light robbery.
DatabaseGod 11y ago
would be great to see all the ceos from ca finally do something about this fascist modern america. if you are not doing anything against it, you are part of it.
leap_ahead 11y ago
Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go there. Then what? My cell phone and laptop can be confiscated at the airport for no reason. When I continue on to the streets I can be mugged by the police and get all of my money taken from me. And then when I go on without my phone or any money in my pocket, I can get killed in a mass shooting by yet another disgruntled worker who's just been laid off or by a high school freak whose girlfriend has just left him. Or maybe I don't get shot but then get sued by somebody for whatever reason and then I'm going to need from a few hundred thousands bucks to a few millions to defend myself in a court. Which will probably consider a Russian citizen a hacker and a criminal and pronounce me guilty anyway. Sound like a true third world country to me. I'm not saying Russia is much better. But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of the 60s-80s. What happened to you? How have you fallen so low?
- senorito 11y ago
  German citizen here. I wouldn't even consider going on vacation there anymore.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of the 60s-80s. It never was. You just grew up and now you're able to see past the propaganda.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  The internet happened. We are no less corrupt than we ever were. We are just more obvious about it now because of the internet. People always think, "oh, things were so much better back in the day". In reality, no, they weren't. It was just different. Back in the day, we wouldn't let blacks use the same bathroom or water fountain. Now we steal their money. It is the same America it always was. We just have more people airing our dirty laundry.
spacemanmatt 11y ago
The war on drugs is a war on due process. It should bother you.
- jMyles 11y ago
  It does bother most of us. When polled, more than 4 out of 5 Americans say that the war on drugs has failed.
TheCondor 11y ago
In the first batch of comments on WaPo there is a link to the petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-forfeiture https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-forf... With close to zero interest at this point
stegosaurus 11y ago
The basic problem is, as people have pointed out, euphemistic political language and moral relativism. Asset forfeiture is theft. Taxation is theft. Imprisonment is kidnapping. War is killing. And so on. They are not necessarily evil. It would not be evil for me to steal my neighbours' rifle if I knew he had nefarious plans. It is not evil to take money from a billionaire if he willingly allows the poor to starve otherwise. But it is still theft. Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Both asset forfeiture and taxation are taking, but they are not "theft" because that is taking in violation of law. Lawful takings cannot be theft by definition. "Theft" is also not a concept that exists in the world outside our legal books and dictionaries. In the state of nature, everything is mine that I can take for myself.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Theft has a very specific definition: noun 1. the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another. So to claim X is theft, you are claiming that it is wrongful; i.e. evil. > Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms. Somehow people seem to be willing to twist and distort basic, concrete, obvious terms to push and reinforce their ideology.
rayiner 11y ago
I think we should repeal the civil forfeiture laws, but the article plays a little fast and loose with the law. In a civil forfeiture, the government has the burden to show probable cause for the forfeiture, and in a contested proceeding has the burden to show that the assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof does rest on the property owner for invoking the "innocent owner" defense, but that is narrower than it sounds. That defense is involved when, e.g. someone buys property with money that was given to them by someone who obtained it through illegal activity. The government still has to establish the money came from illegal activity, but the owner can assert that they did not know about and did not consent to the illegal activity.
matt_morgan 11y ago
If this makes you as mad as it makes me, consider supporting the ACLU, which has been persistent in fighting it: https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture
outworlder 11y ago
From the article: > The practice has proven to be controversial. Is that the new slang for 'criminal' or for 'state-sponsored theft'?
jrs235 11y ago
Here's another example of civil forfeiture: https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur
cloudbooksapp 11y ago
The problem is when you agree to give them $10,000 for a new car but get a bicycle instead. www.cloudbooksapp.com
datamingle 11y ago
Can everyone vote for a libertarian candidate in your elections? Tired of govt overreach

602 points by rl3 11y ago

masterleep 11y ago

Of course, this is unlawful, but that doesn't really seem to stop the government these days.

superuser2 11y ago
Civil forfeiture is entirely within the legal system, provided for by democratically appointed laws, upheld time and time again by judges. There is no twist of language that makes this "unlawful." Civil forfeiture is a facet of law. As such, it is also subject to being eliminated by legislatures. As the article mentions, New Mexico did this. That this has not happened at the federal level is in fact not an indication of a misbehaving executive branch. It is an indication that Congressman do not find the issue relevant to their reelection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...

ekianjo 11y ago

The important bit: > he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black person on that part of the train.

hippich 11y ago
race-card popular lately, but civil forfeiture is a problem here. More race you bring - less efficient you get with fighting real issue at hands. If you do little research - people of all races and sexes were hurt by that, and local/federal police benefitted from it.
- ndespres 11y ago
  Please don't do a dismissive handwave over what's really an important element to this story. That the victim is a person of color is absolutely relevant to this story; it demonstrates a bias on behalf of the DEA agent, or perhaps simply a cynicism: they know what they can get away with in the eyes of the public. Of COURSE race is an important element of how law enforcement interacts with citizens. Race is part of these issues. The very term "race card" is offensive and marginalizing, even if you didn't mean it that way.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    > a person of color There's one of your problems. Am I a person of no colour? Your (and this isn't a direct attack on you) use of language contributes to the situation while it is trying to be softly softly.
    - ndespres 11y ago
      We should not define people in terms of what they are "not" or lump them into a group of who they are different from ("minority"). So no, if you are white you can be just that. Maybe it doesn't have as much play outside the U.S. but the term PoC seems to work well here. For the whole semantic argument I'll point to http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color .
      - SixSigma 11y ago
        we're even more positive, blacks are called black. No messing about. We also have IC codes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC_codes Code Ethnicity IC1 White - North European IC2 White - South European IC3 Black IC4 Asian (in the UK Asian refers to people from the Indian subcontinent like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal) IC5 Chinese, Japanese, or other South East Asian IC6 Arabic or North African IC9 Unknown And, just to polish things off, the European Union has declared that there is no such thing as "race".
  - konradb 11y ago
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  You say it's not about race, but let me point you to the story of a Texas freelance racist who was supported by many racist cops and citizens for a long time. I have lived in Texas all my life, and he is a household name among people who care about civil rights. I don't mention this to say civil forfeiture is necessarily racist, as much as to point out that it is a tool entirely too attractive to them. And they are using it as much as they can, here. http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/coleman_convicted.html http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/coleman_convicted.ht...
  - hippich 11y ago
    i bet america has racism issues, but civil forfeiture is completely different issue. and trying to bring up racism problem into it makes it only more complicated - suddenly you get "racist cops" who probably, after reading this article will not think about "wow, forfeiture rules are stupid", but rather "huh, so they caught black guy, he probably was doing narcotics" or similar bs. Fight one problem at a time.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      >Fight one problem at a time. Strongly disagreed. And for the reason that they don't occur in a vacuum. Racism and police abuse have a very long history.
Zikes 11y ago
The important bit: > The agent found Rivers's cash, still in a bank envelope. Yeah, the police have a severe race issue, but civil asset forfeiture is being used against anybody that has anything worth taking.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
The key part for me is right here - "A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why." Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for the cop to be asking it. We, as a society, need to walk this all back starting right here at this point in the process. The forfeiture itself is so clearly unconstitutional that I can't imagine how even a loose constructionist can twist it to make it ok. Much less someone like Thomas or Scalia. Ugh.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW) belongs in jail for a long time. What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".
  - authatheist 11y ago
    Well, the people who make the laws are, by definition, above them. Government is pretty much just a society-wide extortion racket. The ultimate mafia.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    This is why the individuals involved in these acts need to have their names and faces splashed in the news, and their homes picketed by protesters, for starters. Individual discretion, but with collective protection and anonymity. That's not going to work.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that the officials crossed the limits in basically everything in case what's reported is completely factual. And honestly, having cash in an envelope should be something completely normal no matter where you are. In Japan having tons of cash on you is not frown upon by anyone, because cash is used for everything and accepted everywhere even where cards aren't (and people are not afraid of being robbed).

simoncion 11y ago

I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations. After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."' Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects? I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically, if the officer really wanted to search and was otherwise barred from executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.

MCRed 11y ago
By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate from its owner. This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.) That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants. In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court. I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?

mr_luc 11y ago

I'm sure that this is a valued asset in the fight against crime ... ... but as this story illustrates, it's so shockingly immoral as to constitute robbery. Shut it down.

MCRed 11y ago
I'm not aware of any instances where it was used to fight crime. Seriously, not one.
- simoncion 11y ago
  shrug Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes. I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot agree that forfeiture has never been used to fight crime. Much like it's pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet has swept up evidence of at least one credible terror plot[0], it's pretty clear that at least one instance of forfeiture use was in the service of crime elimination or punishment. [0] Before you downvote, understand my stance. The NSA dragnet is reprehensible and clearly dangerous to the integrity of the Republic. However, the dragnet is so wide that it can't help but catch some of what the NSA is looking for. See what I'm getting at?
  - cnvogel 11y ago
    I see what you're getting at. But I also am convinced that, would you present this on public television or anything with a similar broad distribution, you'd persuade many people to support civil forfeiture (or the NSA dragnet), because it's obviously effective against crime! In the general public, only a minority seems to still be interested that means are somehow proportionate to the ends. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! INCARCERATE EVERYONE!
    - simoncion 11y ago
      You're making an argument that I don't disagree with and that also doesn't address anything in my comment. :) I was making a narrow statement that addressed MCRed's comment. My footnote was presented to make my position abundantly clear to all who would read my comment.

DigitalSea 11y ago

Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of these draconian laws around asset forfeiture. The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p... We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.

hinkley 11y ago
I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.
- minot 11y ago
  Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate? Where do we draw the line?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Can I do the same with a business? Steve Jackson Games? Delorean?
  - fiatmoney 11y ago

MCRed 11y ago

I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..." I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then. This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim government is legitimate and in the best interest if the people when you have its agents engaging in (literal) highway robbery. The argument at the time was that this was supposed to be for drugs. The whole basis of the drug war was that addiction is bad and thus to protect people, we need to get rid of drugs. OF course as the past century has shown this doesn't work (I'm including the prohibition era.) But worse, it has twisted around and is now being used to cause suffering in people. Let me give you an example: I went to the same high school as a guy who became an oncologist. Most of his patients were terminal. The DEA has decided that doctors giving terminally ill people drugs to relieve them of their pain is some sort of scourge on society... so they track how often they are prescribed... and then they average that and go after doctors who "over prescribe". When they went after him-- he had a small practice-- they came in guns blazing, arrested everyone, stole all of his valuables, and his computers, stole the money from his bank and brokerage accounts. Stole the money his wife had. Stole the money his employees (most of whom were not wealthy.) He was unable to afford a lawyer because they stole his money. Pre-trial they made many assertions and presented many documents he believe were dishonest or forgeries, but he could not prove it because they stole his computers and they were "accidentally damaged". They certainly weren't returning them. They charged him and his wife, and told him that if they had to arrest his wife that she would be in jail as would he at lest a year before it came tot trial-- and so they'd place his kids with a permanent foster home. But if he took their plea, he would get a reduced sentence (possibly it was probation, but It think it was 6 months in jail, plus probation) and they wouldn't charge his wife and employees. Yes, they literally held his wife, kids and employees hostage (literally threatened if you want to be pedantic) unless he would admit to doing something illegal, even though he was just giving terminally ill people pain medication. I think this whole affair is criminal, denying him adequate counsel by stealing his money, piling absurd charges on top of absurd charges to put others in jeopardy to manipulate him, it's all criminal. He took the deal. His family was wiped out-- as part of the "deal" he gave up that money, and now the DEA is using it to buy toys for themselves... literally profiting from the crime. His family is in shambles because he can't practice medicine anymore. Here's what's really absurd. The idea that terminally ill patients shouldn't be able to get take any drugs they want. Even if they risk overdose, it's a quality of life issue and effectively denying them is nothing short of torture. They shouldn't even need a doctors prescription. This is a fake crime created to exert control over the populace. And you know what's worse? Too many of the other people who went to this high school and knew him thought he deserved it... because obviously they wouldn't charge him if he weren't guilty. How can I respect a government that practices this? How can I respect Reagan who signed this into law? Or clinton who didn't try and repeal it? Or Bush who didn't either? Or Obama who not only did nothing, but had Joe Biden as his running mate? How is this going to turn around? It's not until it starts getting painful. There are only a few ways to make things painful-- the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance. Another is the bullet box and revolutions rarely turn out well... but they were the only method our founders could see to prevent exactly this situation. ("It's a republic... if you can keep it"... we've lost it.) Finally is the soap box. I'm getting off of mine now.

imroot 11y ago

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any opportunity to be released; that includes a plea agreement that includes no more jail time, but, generally also includes more financial obligations (probation, fine, license reinstatement) against the defendant. We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during his shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion of the 4th amendment, nexus centers, sweeping overreaches of the third party doctrine, stingrays, and mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother would be proud.

itistoday2 11y ago
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.
- thedufer 11y ago
  Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    > Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.

VieElm 11y ago

Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.

URSpider94 11y ago
Oh it has been, many many times. I can't explain the jurisprudence behind it, but this is nothing new.
MCRed 11y ago
It has been, but it lost. I don't remember the case offhand though. That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.
remarkEon 11y ago
Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf
- sukilot 11y ago
  That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime. It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.
11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

andrewchambers 11y ago

It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.

notdiminoten 11y ago
Where else in the world could WBC and the KKK exist? Just look at how the neo Nazis are treated in Germany. The US fucks it up royally and regularly, but in different ways from the rest of the world.
socceroos 11y ago
This. And while the USA purports to be the leaders in freedom, we see similar erosion of freedom and liberty in other Socialist/Democratic societies like Australia, UK and France. The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing. People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back. "Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."
adventured 11y ago
The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg NY Times or Washington Post). When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it's very difficult as a citizen in one state, to be aware of what a national agency (the DEA) is doing across the entire nation, unless the national news outlets are writing about it. While a typical American is going about their day to day life, living a local life (some town, in some county, in some state), the world's largest, most powerful federal / national government is aggressively attempting to undermine them in hundreds of ways large and small. The US has a federal government that is financially the size of the entire economy of Germany, doing nothing but passing more laws, economic regulations, taxes, et al. to strangle liberty as much as they can and increase their power. There is very little else they do, or need to do. What does a beast that large do? Protect itself, entrench its own interests, grab more money, write more laws - there is nothing else for it to do most of the time. Try doing something about that, or even thinking about how you can stop it, if you're an average citizen. It boggles the mind. Oh yeah, while you're at it, deal with the fact that the US military (which the NSA belongs to) is now increasingly taking aim at the US domestic population, you know, the world's most powerful military with a $600 billion budget. Now compare this situation to the complexity faced by, say, Finland (5.4 million people) in trying to reign in or adjust its government system. The US has something like 200,000 pages of federal regulations; try fixing that, while the vast dedicated law passing machine is busy passing thousands of new regulations. It isn't going to stop expanding and over-reaching until it crashes, choking itself to death.

aftbit 11y ago

One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash. However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.

rahimnathwani 11y ago
This is an interesting point. If the only way to avoid submission of information to your bank is to forego banking services, then this is not a meaningful choice, and you're not giving up the information voluntarily. It is analogous to the point a judge made in a case here: http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373 http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373 "The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law. The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful choice."
sukilot 11y ago
The law is rather clear, if dismal: privacy is not a right, only surprise violations of privacy are illegal. Once the government starts abusing people enough , it is no longer an expectation of privacy. See also the prohibition against "unusual" punishment.

nekopa 11y ago

This sounds like the beginning of a modern day Robin Hood movie.

ekianjo 11y ago
Robin Hood did not steal from the poor, if I remember correctly.
- nekopa 11y ago
  Normally most Robin Hood movies start off showing the bad guys, the Sheriffs men, stealing from the poor. It takes a while for Robin to show up, and it seems that in real life, this will never be the case - as $3.9 billion worth of seizures is going to motivate the cops and Feds to fight any changes to this legislation tooth and nail.

steve19 11y ago

I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly).... ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry confiscated. Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned should be pretty simple. Print out a bank statement (he said he withdrew it from an out of state bank) and take it to the nearest DEA (or US Marshal?) office. On the other hand, if he could not furnish a bank statement, has a history of drug dealing or other criminal activity I would be no more outraged than when a local drug dealer has his car confiscated. (Although I would still be against the law in principle)

woah 11y ago
They stole it, and they will not give it back. If someone is mugged on your block, is the first thing you do to sit there and wonder whether they are completely free of sin?
daeken 11y ago
> ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. The Washington Post confirmed that he was never tried for any crime, let alone convicted. The legal system of the US is built on the premise that guilt must be shown, and innocence presumed. They didn't even attempt to show he was guilty -- instead, they just stole his money.
koube 11y ago
I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system. In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.
11y ago

jmstout 11y ago

Related: If you haven't seen John Oliver's segment on civil asset forfeiture, you should really check it out - https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks

tempestn 11y ago
That was great. I'm going to have to start watching LWT regularly.

dankohn1 11y ago

For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.

api 11y ago
So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?
- a3n 11y ago
  Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."
  - dankohn1 11y ago
    3rd party voting is largely a wasted vote in First Pass the Post [0] systems like the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
    - a3n 11y ago
      You missed the point. Of course whatever 3rd party you vote for won't make it. But it's a registered vote, and it takes a vote away from the two parties. How is voting for a Rep or Dem not a wasted vote, considering what they're doing to us? 3rd parties aren't fucking us (yet). Vote for whoever isn't fucking us, not because they might win (they won't), but to register the protest.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        No he didn't miss the point, you did. You didn't read his link and your comment shows that.
        11y ago

Animats 11y ago

When the Heritage Foundation[1] and the ACLU [2] are both against it, you know it's really bad. [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...

jMyles 11y ago
They're often on the same side of domestic policy.

AwesomeGriffin 11y ago

I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same reasons.

adventured 11y ago
The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact. The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system. Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're implying. In fact it's because of that, that most Americans are unaware of what organizations like the DEA are doing. The US is less corrupt than France for example: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
- visarga 11y ago
  > a mostly still intact and strong property rights system The practice of civil forfeiture on people who can't defend legally, like this guy, sure doesn't indicate that. Maybe for the HSBC guys who laundered $378.4 billion over several years there will be a small fine, their profit for a few months. But no bank was forfeited. No board members were sent to jail for it. It seems property rights are solid, if you are rich.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Yes, the DEA forfeiture racket is vile, and yes it needs to be stopped. Nobody should undercut how terrible what they're doing is. The reason the US still ranks high on the low corruption index, is because you have to take the value of the whole, not just one small problem such as this. It impacts an extraordinarily small percentage of Americans today, and the dollar sums are extraordinarily small in such a large economy. Put another way, on that 100 point corruption scale, the DEA program would represent a negative deduction of 2 or 3 points. What's actually important here, is stopping it before it gets larger. If they don't stop it, it will get much bigger, and graduate from being a small problem to being a serious threat to the average citizen. If we're talking about rights violations, civil forfeitures are a joke compared to the war on drugs for example and the incarceration that has been going on since the 1970s.

greendata 11y ago

If the police continue to allow asset seizure eventually an enterprising politician and banker will find a way to seize police pensions. There will be no public outcry. Once you institutionalize theft at this level it doesn't stay put--it grows.

task_queue 11y ago
The banker or politician will never be affected by this, why would they try to upset the police unions?
- greendata 11y ago
  Many US cities are near bankrupt and probably a lot more will be in the next ten years. There will be enormous political pressure to cut costs. One way to cut costs is to reduce pensions or fail to fulfill pension promises. I don't advocate this and in fact I think the police are being setup in some ways. By allowing some police to engage in what looks like theft the general public will be amenable to pension cuts in the future. Just see Detroit as an example of our possible future.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    I've never seen police unions on the chopping block. After the most recent crisis, teacher unions and other government worker unions were paraded around as needing to be fixed.

bcook 11y ago

I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.

crystaln 11y ago
Why are you asking this question? The answer is none of your business. One should be able to travel with as much cash as one chooses.
- bcook 11y ago
  My point was; if you carry cash in large amounts and lose it, then you did not prepare. Carrying around your life savings in cash is a very bad decision, because _anyone_ can take it and you have very little recourse. I ask because there are a few ways to avoid this particular situation; fix government overreach or stop carrying your life savings in cash. Doing both seems safest, but if we can only do one, then itis obvious which is easiest.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Because what's right and what's sensible are two different things. Bear in mind that you could also get robbed the old-fashioned way - if you reach into your envelope full of money to withdraw any cash there's a small but non-zero possibility that someone will notice and get the idea to take it for themselves. This is why people used to carry traveler's checks before plastic became ubiquitous - people know that carrying a bunch of cash as a tourist in an unfamiliar place is unwise.
  - yarou 11y ago
    I think you are completely missing the point of this article. This isn't about whether or not one should carry large amounts of cash with them. Rather, this is about an abuse of power by a large government entity that doesn't seem to be held accountable for its actions.

MrBlue 11y ago

Solution: bitcoin.

MichaelGG 11y ago
Cause DPR/SR didn't have coins seized and auctioned?
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  Technically, using a brainwallet could have prevented that unless they tortured the guy over it.
- jpindar 11y ago
  When the cops pull someone over they have no way of knowing whether the person owns any bitcoin.

a3n 11y ago

"You make it, we'll take it." Thugs.

dba7dba 11y ago

I heard a truly tragic story related to the civil forfeiture rule. Heard from a friend who heard from a friend. The family hired an older lady (immigrant, but lived many years in US) who came to clean their house a few times a week. She shared that she had been divorced from her husband but in the process ended up with the house. Being retired with no income (and probably no pension of any kind other than social security which is not enough), she decided to rent a spare room to someone. Guess what. The dude renting it turned out to be a drug dealer (or was it just getting caught smoking weed?). When HE was arrested, somehow the law enforcement (not sure if local PD or DEA) made a connection to HER house. The house was seized. This older lady ended up having to stay with friends and going around working as cleaning/care-taker. Because her house was suddenly taken away from her, she had no other means of supporting her later years in life. When I first heard it, I was like WHAT~~~? This was a few years ago. And than I started reading about local PD seizing private property on minor charges.

sukilot 11y ago
The PD actually usually skips the charges. It is literally highway robbery: trooper pulls over a car, searches it, takes the money.
- iribe 11y ago
  This is no different than paying bribes to third world police.
  - maze-le 11y ago
    In fact it is... I've been to Geogia, in the Caucasus-Mountains, not the southern US-State. There for example, it is common for Highway-Police to set up checkpoints, and if you are a foreigner, you can be sure to pay them some bucks, 25$, 50$, 100$ somewhere in that dimension. To be sure, this is 'illegal'... No one cares to stop the police from doing that though, but it is still illegal. It is something entireley different, to always assume your car can be searched and all your cash can be stripped from you 'legally'....

steven2012 11y ago

This is why we can never, ever trust the government to "do the right thing". They have a law that should be used against real criminals, and instead they use it against regular innocent citizens. This is disgusting, and guess what: it's going to happen time and time again whenever we give the government too much power over our lives. And yet, it's happening right now.

ubersync 11y ago

Wouldn't happen with bitcoins.

qrmn 11y ago
Did happen with the Silk Road bitcoins, 30K BTC of which were auctioned off before the trial.
anigbrowl 11y ago
It wouldn't have happened with a visa or mastercard either. Bitcoin has literally nothing to do with this.
- exo762 11y ago
  Apparently it does happen with bank accounts. So no, your point does not stand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Seizures_of_funds_in_a_bank_account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... EDIT: In fact Bitcoin is much better protected against this. m-of-n signatures, brain wallets, hardware devices such as Tresor, etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

meric 11y ago

A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. I wonder if the DEA agent followed him on the train after having found out the bank had reported a bunch of "suspicious" cash withdrawals and given up the victim's identity.

spacemanmatt 11y ago
That's how parallel construction works.

sukilot 11y ago

Snap Judgment did a story this week about how the DEA will pressure child slave drug mules into becoming unpaid informants, and send them into large drug deals with armed cartel heavies, under threat of deportation, in exchange for fake promises of US citizenship.

visarga 11y ago

Wait, wasn't this how democracy was supposed to work in the Land of the Free(TM)? I mean, he had guilty money. I am sure those money passed through the hands of drug dealers at some point in their existence.

andrewstuart 11y ago

When public servants can directly fine citizens in cash, corruption pervades.

Qantourisc 11y ago

As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- nandemo 11y ago
  Can't you just refuse? Or can the police/DEA forcibly search a random person's belongings without a warrant?
mindo 11y ago
Personaly the more I read the less I'm interested to ever go to US. I admit, it's partly because of gun control (absence of it), police burtality and twisted laws, but at the same time I don't even know a single place I would to visit in US...
- yc1010 11y ago
  I have traveled thru' most of the lower 48 states on several occasions, and have to say these were the most memorable trips of my life (I am from Ireland). I have been to all of Europe + some of middle east & far east & latin america, but the US does stand out when I look back with great food, nice people, and amazing wide open spaces and scenery and never got in trouble with law, tho I can imagine it happening (for example: I was constantly warned bye people to stay under speed limit , while in Ireland it is more of a guideline!), since socially the US is a tinderbox about to explode, which is obvious if you ever endup in a wrong part of any town. As for places to visit, where to start! Grand Canyon, White Sands, Las Vegas, LA, Appalachian Trail, Space Coast, Yosemite, San Francisco, Oregon, Savannah, DC, Key West, Texas.... shit the list goes on... now that I think of it the scale of the country and being able to drive everywhere is simply breathtaking, I have traveled thru more of the US than most Americans I spoke to and to be honest yee guys have a great country populated by mostly friendly and nice people. Yes I realize there must be exceptions, but I never got into any trouble travelling the breath and length of the US, and would recommend it to anyone, hell I be back in a few months for more :)

cbsmith 11y ago

"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year." Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative. This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one, not even greedy shareholders or executives with tons of stock options. Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".

task_queue 11y ago
When is it ever not nice to have $38m kicking around that isn't pre-allocated and can be used for whatever?
- cbsmith 11y ago
  Unlike with local seizures, it can't be used for whatever.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Source? I don't doubt you, but I'd like to read up on it anyway as I'm having trouble finding the pertinent information with Google.
    - cbsmith 11y ago
      Yeah, I don't have one that is explicit. All I know is that many of the rules around the use of civil forfeiture funds for local law enforcement are considered unusual because of the complete lack of regulation and oversight as to how that money can be spent (in a lot of towns, aside from fear of being run of of town, there really isn't much stopping the local sheriff from spending the money on hookers and blow). On the Federal spending side, military intelligence spending is kind of the elephant in the room for "light regulation & oversight" of spending, and even that has more checks and balances than local civil forfeiture.

weitzj 11y ago

The justice system is messed up, if the burdon of proof falls on the defendant.

mindo 11y ago

Taking whatever from whoever you want for no reason and making it impossible to get it back sounds like improved version of USSR communism doctrine. The only difference back then people could steal some back to restore the faith. Good job USA!

einrealist 11y ago

He should tell everyone that it was actually 32,000 USD that was taken from him.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vacri 11y ago

Stories like this show the 2nd Amendment defense of "it protects against tyrranical government" for the farce it is. Civil forfeiture isn't rare, and stories have been bubbling up for quite some time. Forget taxes, which actually go to providing you services, pretty much everyone can agree that 'civil forfeiture' is government agents stealing from the public, with no service offered in return. Where is the protection that 2nd Amendment is supposed to give from government?

bakhy 11y ago

The USA, the biggest anti-advertisement for democracy. I can only imagine what could happen to the guy if he was not a Roman.. eh, sorry, US citizen.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mirimir 11y ago

"The DEA" didn't steal Joseph Rivers' life savings. Some particular DEA agents did. And the theft was OKed by various other federal employees, who knew (or should have known) that he was entirely innocent. Two things come to mind. We can compensate Joseph for his loss through his gofundme campaign.[0] But we can also start naming the thieves. One of the accomplices is reportedly "Sean [R.] Waite, agent-in-charge of the DEA’s Albuquerque office".[1] Who are the rest? [0] http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc [1] http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791 http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

yc1010 11y ago

No one touched on it but what if "civil forfeiture" style of theft is being ignored all the way at the top since it helps push people from using cash to using credit and hence gives more power to the state and banks. In the past in US gold was seized, now cash is being seized, seems to me like a trend to herd people into the system where banks and credit card companies can take a cut of everything + make things easier for IRS + make things easier for NSA as you be leaving a digital trail. It is Orwellian beyond belief.

authatheist 11y ago
It's not only ignored at the top, it's just part of the nature of The Beast, for the reasons you mentioned and more.

winter_blue 11y ago

Can they take money from your bank account, though? If they can't, the solution seems to be keeping your money electronic as much as possible. (I personally never carry more than $80 around, partly because getting mugged is not uncommon in NYC.)

gadders 11y ago

I don't know how people can read stories like this and not at least feel some attraction for libertarianism.

petjuh 11y ago

Well, that could partly explain the wealth-gap - if black people are robbed of their money by the police of course they will have less.

jlebrech 11y ago

a real drug dealer would value $16k more than a DEA agents life. it's day light robbery.

DatabaseGod 11y ago

would be great to see all the ceos from ca finally do something about this fascist modern america. if you are not doing anything against it, you are part of it.

leap_ahead 11y ago

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go there. Then what? My cell phone and laptop can be confiscated at the airport for no reason. When I continue on to the streets I can be mugged by the police and get all of my money taken from me. And then when I go on without my phone or any money in my pocket, I can get killed in a mass shooting by yet another disgruntled worker who's just been laid off or by a high school freak whose girlfriend has just left him. Or maybe I don't get shot but then get sued by somebody for whatever reason and then I'm going to need from a few hundred thousands bucks to a few millions to defend myself in a court. Which will probably consider a Russian citizen a hacker and a criminal and pronounce me guilty anyway. Sound like a true third world country to me. I'm not saying Russia is much better. But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of the 60s-80s. What happened to you? How have you fallen so low?

senorito 11y ago
German citizen here. I wouldn't even consider going on vacation there anymore.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of the 60s-80s. It never was. You just grew up and now you're able to see past the propaganda.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
The internet happened. We are no less corrupt than we ever were. We are just more obvious about it now because of the internet. People always think, "oh, things were so much better back in the day". In reality, no, they weren't. It was just different. Back in the day, we wouldn't let blacks use the same bathroom or water fountain. Now we steal their money. It is the same America it always was. We just have more people airing our dirty laundry.

spacemanmatt 11y ago

The war on drugs is a war on due process. It should bother you.

jMyles 11y ago
It does bother most of us. When polled, more than 4 out of 5 Americans say that the war on drugs has failed.

TheCondor 11y ago

In the first batch of comments on WaPo there is a link to the petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-forfeiture https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-forf... With close to zero interest at this point

stegosaurus 11y ago

The basic problem is, as people have pointed out, euphemistic political language and moral relativism. Asset forfeiture is theft. Taxation is theft. Imprisonment is kidnapping. War is killing. And so on. They are not necessarily evil. It would not be evil for me to steal my neighbours' rifle if I knew he had nefarious plans. It is not evil to take money from a billionaire if he willingly allows the poor to starve otherwise. But it is still theft. Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms.

rayiner 11y ago
Both asset forfeiture and taxation are taking, but they are not "theft" because that is taking in violation of law. Lawful takings cannot be theft by definition. "Theft" is also not a concept that exists in the world outside our legal books and dictionaries. In the state of nature, everything is mine that I can take for myself.
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
Theft has a very specific definition: noun 1. the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another. So to claim X is theft, you are claiming that it is wrongful; i.e. evil. > Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms. Somehow people seem to be willing to twist and distort basic, concrete, obvious terms to push and reinforce their ideology.

rayiner 11y ago

I think we should repeal the civil forfeiture laws, but the article plays a little fast and loose with the law. In a civil forfeiture, the government has the burden to show probable cause for the forfeiture, and in a contested proceeding has the burden to show that the assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof does rest on the property owner for invoking the "innocent owner" defense, but that is narrower than it sounds. That defense is involved when, e.g. someone buys property with money that was given to them by someone who obtained it through illegal activity. The government still has to establish the money came from illegal activity, but the owner can assert that they did not know about and did not consent to the illegal activity.

matt_morgan 11y ago

If this makes you as mad as it makes me, consider supporting the ACLU, which has been persistent in fighting it: https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture

outworlder 11y ago

From the article: > The practice has proven to be controversial. Is that the new slang for 'criminal' or for 'state-sponsored theft'?

jrs235 11y ago

Here's another example of civil forfeiture: https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur

cloudbooksapp 11y ago

The problem is when you agree to give them $10,000 for a new car but get a bicycle instead. www.cloudbooksapp.com

datamingle 11y ago

Can everyone vote for a libertarian candidate in your elections? Tired of govt overreach