[HN Gopher] TSA's "See cash, seize cash" policy
___________________________________________________________________
TSA's "See cash, seize cash" policy
Author : adolph
Score : 214 points
Date : 2021-09-23 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| random_kris wrote:
| Use Bitcoin
| coolspot wrote:
| I traveled with like $20k cash arriving from aboard via LAX.
|
| Declared in paper that I have those money and verbally when asked
| upon entry, then had to go with an officer to fill out some
| additional form, that's it.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| What's your point? That this isn't an issue because it didn't
| happen to you one time?
| samtho wrote:
| The issue with the OP's case is that this guy was flying
| domestically and traveling with any amount of cash is not a
| crime nor is required to be reported. Because this procedure of
| declaring cash is with Customs and Boarding Protection, it only
| ever applies when flying in from abroad.
| dangus wrote:
| Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in
| civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this
| is still a _colossally stupid_ way to make a transaction.
|
| A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this
| scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the
| taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home,
| and the list goes on.
|
| Has this guy ever heard of Western Union? Bitcoin? A cashier's
| check? _Anything else besides a suitcase full of cash?_
|
| This method of making a large transaction is so stupid that it's
| hard for me to even blame the government for considering it
| automatically suspicious. Of course, having no due process
| surrounding civil asset forfeiture is not right, but that doesn't
| mean that this transaction isn't suspicious.
|
| I'd go ahead and play devil's advocate here: the only reason to
| carry this much cash is to do one of the following:
|
| 1. Evade sales and income tax (You can say this isn't your
| problem, or that the government should take less of our money
| anyway, but countries that have high tax avoidance rates have
| poor infrastructure and public services - tax avoidance hurts
| honest people the most)
|
| 2. Make a transaction to exchange illegal goods or people
|
| It's entirely possible that this guy's story is just a lie. I
| think it's naive to pretend that this guy isn't likely to be
| connected to organized crime. That's the whole "organized" part
| of it: they're going to be armed with a good story and
| disciplined behavior, not like the people you see on Cops
| admitting guilt the second a beat cop starts asking questions.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Most of Germans would disagree with you, they use a lot of cash
| and avoid cards, at least the older generations.
|
| If you think someone is a criminal, prove it first; without
| that, shut up.
| drdeadringer wrote:
| I understand your point even to be surprised you don't cite
| "Run Lola Run" to illustrate yourself.
|
| However, there are valid reasons people -- including criminals
| -- still use cash.
| mywittyname wrote:
| People trust cash. A lot of people dealing in used goods only
| accept cash. It's substantially more difficult to forge a load
| of $100s than it is to forge a money order. All you need to
| verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.
| pempem wrote:
| I'd take it one further.
|
| If CSCS type programs take hold outside of china, you will
| need cash to do many basic things without the support of the
| government who will be busy regulating if you can fly, take a
| train, open an account, throttle your internet etc. etc.
| DHPersonal wrote:
| > All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5
| marker.
|
| Those do not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_
| banknote_detection...
| arwhatever wrote:
| I particularly hate it when the airport officials seize all of my
| cryptocurrency. :-)
| williamscales wrote:
| You jest, but wait until they put you in a small room and beat
| you with a wet noodle until you give up your passphrase.
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| It's not like they seize money out of my bank account..
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Don't want U.S. law enforcement seen as a villain?
|
| Crack down on this garbage.
| bserge wrote:
| Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is
| "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are
| suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an
| expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor
| the poor really are.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Really? Retail businessea move much larger amounts of cash
| every day, private citizens (rich and poor alike) rarely see
| more than a couple of hundred at a time. At least this is my
| experience.
| godelski wrote:
| There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track
| anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at
| gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone
| below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the
| spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be
| getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a
| problem is that it is placing the burden on people who already
| don't have money, by complicating their taxes. It's weird to
| see banks and credit unions sending petitions around[1]. But
| this is also why I'm nervous about a fed crypto coin.
|
| [0]
| https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/da...
|
| [1] https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-
| cente...
| version_five wrote:
| I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or
| escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing
| into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and
| finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of
| most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge
| for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like
| basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think
| there is positive feedback because it keeps the poor "in
| their place" while simultaneously signaling how progressive
| the proponents are. Expect it to get a lot worse.
| chiefofgxbxl wrote:
| I remember seeing increased IRS enforcement as one of the
| payment methods for the recent U.S. infrastructure bill, and
| thinking about how that really meant taxing the poor:
|
| "One of the starkest differences is who will pay for it all.
| While Biden pledged to increase corporate income taxes to
| fund infrastructure, Republicans drew a line in the sand. The
| new deal pulls together a patchwork of increased IRS
| enforcement, selling off petroleum reserves, [...]" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-06-24/factbo
| x-b...
| SilasX wrote:
| "And the brilliant part is, we have inflation as a matter of
| policy, and never update the threshold, so eventually the limit
| is meaningless and we can seize all cash!"
| dmitrygr wrote:
| All governments want cashless economies. They make it easier to
| track money, collect taxes, keep an eyes on the populace, etc.
| India did it by invalidating all large-denomination bills. China
| did it by limiting ATM withdrawals. United States is doing it in
| the most American way possible. Literal highway robbery!
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| If the US government actually wanted to (mostly) eliminate
| cash, they could just stop printing currency, and wait for
| what's in circulation to wear out. That would take about 23
| years [0]. As it is, though, only about 8% of all USD exists in
| physical form [1], anyway, making the USD largely a digital
| currency already.
|
| ---
|
| [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-
| spa...
|
| [1]: https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm
| dmitrygr wrote:
| That would be reported by the news and people would care.
| Whereas here we get this reaction: "they seized his money and
| _say_ he is _suspected_ of being a drug dealer, well then i
| have nothing to worry about - i am not a drug dealer. "
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Eh, people would care for about 5 minutes, just like
| everything else. Remember when basically every American
| adult with a credit history had their entire credit files
| stolen? How many people do you hear talking about _that_
| now?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is materially different than having your cash stolen
| from you by a seemingly random person at the airport. One
| results in a very small probability of it affecting you
| in any way, the other is someone stealing from you.
| [deleted]
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think they are replying to the currency printing
| hypothetical not the 125,000-dollars-stolen-from-me
| hypothetical.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I thought they were comparing people's reactions to news
| about equifax's data breach exposing people's social and
| other identifying info to news about the government
| stealing from people via civil asset forfeiture.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| @zamadatix is correct.
| bserge wrote:
| Works even better in the EU. 20K in cash on an economy
| flight? Criminal! No other way. No way you saved up all of
| that, you poor pos!
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think the most common reaction is going to be "this guy
| carried my mortgage worth in cash on his person to the
| airport, I don't think I'm going to have that problem".
| mywittyname wrote:
| Until the time they go buy a $5000 used car.
|
| Also, it's not just cash they go after. There are plenty
| of "State v. Diamond Necklace" or "State v. Various
| Electronics Valued at Approx. $1000" cases out there.
| shartacct wrote:
| > Until the time they go buy a $5000 used car.
|
| Who buys a car with cash, except for trashy/unscrupulous
| people? In my adult life I've never bought a used car
| with cash, usually it's cashiers check or wire transfer
| or more recently ACH after funds in my account were
| verified.
|
| While it's undoubtedly an overreach to just seize all
| large sums of money that pass through an airport, there's
| zero doubt in my mind that anyone doing it is doing so
| for good reason. The 'victim' in this case is almost
| certainly involved in drug or human trafficking.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| People, generally, want to be able to pay electronically too.
| It is very convenient.
| kragen wrote:
| My experience is the opposite. I can open up my wallet and
| take out a $1000 bill* in about three seconds; if change is
| due, that typically takes about another ten seconds. Paying
| with a credit card takes about a minute, four to ten times
| less convenient, except a significant percentage of the time
| the time " _no hay sistema_ " and it just doesn't work, and
| sooner or later your credit card number gets sold to the
| Russian Mafia on a carding forum. I guess for super organized
| people checking your monthly statement to see if you've been
| signed up for a porn subscription you don't know about is not
| a big deal, but if you're super organized can't you just
| organize yourself to have the cash you need when you need it?
|
| Also, do I really want Visa International to know what brand
| of constipation medicine I take and which anarchist magazines
| I subscribe to? (None, I swear!) Anything I buy on a credit
| card is something I can expect to have to explain to the
| police or the immigration authorities sooner or later,
| possibly after the next military coup, or maybe just because
| there was a protest nearby that turned violent and they'd
| like to know why I was in that neighborhood that day. Also,
| why do I need acetone? I'm not cooking meth, am I?
|
| If you think this stuff will never affect you, well, nobody
| ever thinks it will affect them, until it does. Most people
| alive have lived through an invasion, a coup, or an episode
| of extreme governmental repression, and most people who
| haven't yet will.
|
| Bitcoin is a nice alternative when it's applicable, but
| transaction costs are a bit high for buying a cigarette or a
| restaurant meal, and it's a headache when the confirmation
| time is 45 minutes instead of 10 minutes. Hopefully Lightning
| will fix this.
|
| ______
|
| * Inflation is bad here, yo. $1000 is about US$6, but
| printing $2000 bills hasn't been approved yet.
| cvak wrote:
| Why would paying with a credit card take a minute? It's 3s
| with contactless, and since covid it doesn't require a pin
| code.
| kragen wrote:
| Beats me. When did credit cards ever require a PIN,
| though?
| hackstack wrote:
| Chip-and-PIN has been prevalent outside the US since its
| inception, and is still the norm for large credit card
| purchases.
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| Because mainframes in South America aren't that fast.
| Specially in Venezuela and Argentina.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Gee man, it sounds like you live in quite the hell hole.
| Move to a decent country, you'll be happier.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| You also support open borders and universal emigration,
| right?
|
| How does this approach scale?
| anyxdf wrote:
| I don't think so. Spending control is much easier when you
| withdraw a fixed amount at the beginning of the month.
|
| Checking bank statements is easier (they are very short).
|
| You don't have to worry who will abuse your credit card or
| bank details.
| saurik wrote:
| That is an unrelated thought: the world can slowly come to
| hardly ever use cash--or even achieve universal cashless-ness
| --without the continued existence of cash being actively
| discouraged by the government.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I agree, although I do not think civil asset forfeiture is
| specifically used to discourage the use of cash and
| incentivize people to go electronic, or at least it was not
| designed with that motive.
|
| Civil asset forfeiture is a power trip by the government
| that neither political party wants to touch, and it does a
| great job at reducing trust in the US's governing bodies.
| When I was a kid, I thought that kind of low level brazen
| corruption only happened in poorer or less developed
| countries. Now I get to see my countrymen doing it and
| admitting to it on video, year after year.
| zepto wrote:
| Why does nobody want to touch it? That is what is a
| mystery to me.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The police unions in this country are powerful. A lot of
| seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to
| officers. Either directly, or indirectly by financing
| "team building exercises" at a Build Your Own AK Ranch or
| some shit.
|
| The prosecutors offices get their cut too, so they have
| an incentive to keep their mouths shut. Everyone else can
| be bullied into submission.
| andrewmg wrote:
| Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action
| (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport
| forfeitures:
|
| https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/
|
| IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-
| forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work.
|
| (Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend
| whom I admire greatly.)
| joncrane wrote:
| It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to
| support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International,
| etc.
| gred wrote:
| Really? Why should we not organize to fight for causes that
| we believe in? Would you be happy delegating your moral
| compass to the U.S. Department of Do-Goodery?
| effingwewt wrote:
| He is saying it's the government's job to do those things
| so we don't have to.
|
| The fact that we have a failed government is not something
| we should all just bend over and accept as status quo
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| IJ is one of the charities that you can select for Amazon
| Smile, so a small percentage of your Amazon purchases will be
| donated to IJ. I think they're deserving.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| I've only somewhat recently heard of IJ, but it's one of the
| first orgs that I've ever actually felt compelled to support.
| Their marketing is really good at both being informative and
| persuasive. I really hope that their goals are as good as I
| read them to be.
| woodpanel wrote:
| There's a joke in Cuba: Two women argue about who has the better
| boyfriend. The one says proudly: "Mine works as a luggage-handler
| at the airport!" To which the other replies ashamed: "Mine's just
| a doctor..."
|
| With that in mind I wonder whether it is TSA policy to always
| have these officers cross-sworn in with the FBI, or if it's a
| legal loophole which officers can exploit?
|
| From the tweet-thread it looks like local police departments have
| similar "double-agents"...
|
| So if it is a loophole the guy in the video just figured how to
| maximize his reward for his moraly derelict actions. Like the
| luggage handler at Havanna-Airport.
| effingwewt wrote:
| When shit like this is so mainstream it's cross-continental and
| yet nothing is ever done, just goes to further show governments
| only support and defend themselves.
| pempem wrote:
| Does anyone else see the tax collector of Prince John from 1970s
| Robinhood? Here to steal from the people to give to the
| government.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html
| drenvuk wrote:
| At this point, is it worth it to turn it into a criminal case
| where you fight them for the cash? They're trying to keep the
| cash inside of civil rules. what happens if you physically refuse
| to let them have your items? Because they're yours and you
| believe they're attempting to steal from you?
| Strom wrote:
| Probably a really fast way to get yourself added to the no-fly
| list.
| drenvuk wrote:
| Probably. $115k vs no fly list. What's worse?
| function_seven wrote:
| The cash would remain within the civil rules, and on top of
| that you'd catch a charge and a criminal case. Even if you beat
| that rap, you're still back where you started with respect to
| the money.
| aazaa wrote:
| > Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned.
| He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he
| also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly
| with in the U.S.
|
| Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal
| action. It's _outside_ the legal system, which is why it 's
| nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality
| of what Lyon was doing doesn't matter. It's not a system of law,
| but power. He who has the power makes the law on the spot.
|
| That the US collectively has resigned itself to this level of
| clear overreach, utterly indefensible on any legal grounds, not
| to mention the bill of rights, says a lot about what 9/11 has
| done.
|
| The terrorists won the battle the people of this country thought
| they were fighting.
| treeman79 wrote:
| If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate,
| some places will require you to make child support payments
| even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything
| todo with the child, etc.
|
| Welfare office Argument being is that someone should pay for
| the kid.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate,
| some places will require you to make child support payments
| even if you prove that your not the father, never had
| anything todo with the child, etc.
|
| "Some places"? Really, which exactly? The only case I am
| aware of in _any_ US jurisdiction where child support is
| required even in the face of proof of biological non-
| paternity is for children born in wedlock (sometimes with
| other requirements, such as marital cohabitation) in states
| where the marital presumption of paternity is conclusive (or
| conclusive when other requirements are met) rather than
| merely presumptive. And in that case it is _literally_ what
| you legally signed up for.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action._
|
| This is categorically _wrong_. CAF is outside of the _criminal_
| legal system, but is very much part of the _civil_ legal
| system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than
| they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related
| criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always
| win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases
| involving drugs, racketeering, fraud, or financial crimes.)
|
| CAF cases make the news when the victim _doesn 't_ get their
| money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires
| and earthquakes do: because _that 's not the normal state of
| things._
|
| CAF is problematic, especially the way it is run in the South
| and Midwest, but don't make it out to be something that it
| isn't.
|
| EDIT: The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it
| absolutely is not. CAF is specifically authorized by the
| Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, a federal law.
|
| The OP asserted that the "terrorists won" even though CAF
| predates 9/11 and was created to combat organize crime. (CAF
| laws in the U.S. date back to the 1700s, but were infrequently
| used until roughly 1920 when they were used to target organized
| crime during Prohibition. The modern federal CAF law was passed
| in the 1984, to fight the "war on drugs", specifically
| referring to the drug cartels, and were modeled on the
| Prohibition Era CAF laws.)
| Karishma1234 wrote:
| I think it is very complicated. CAF comes in many forms,
| Judicial AF and Administrative AF. In many cases you can't
| even reach the courts as the government attorney needs to
| allow the case to reach the court.
|
| If it is CBP that confiscates your cash, it is supposed to
| inform DOJ about it and then you are supposed to reach out to
| DOJ to get it back. Now despite the law CBP simply refused to
| inform DOJ, as you have to chase this alphabet soup of
| agencies. In most cases CBP offers to keep a portion of the
| cash and wants to return rest of the money as settlement.
|
| CAF is a program that should be completely abolished.
| steve_g wrote:
| You're right that it's not extralegal action. But you're
| wrong that rarity makes it newsworthy. It's newsworthy
| because it's so obviously unjust and corrupt.
| hapless wrote:
| In the incident described in the local news story, an officer
| of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only
| resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused
| to play along.
|
| I think it's important to note that it _began_ with an extra-
| legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure
| that followed.
|
| Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a
| larger amount than substantially all losses to property
| crimes _combined_ , and we have no way of knowing how much
| _more_ was lost to extra-legal demands that didn 't pass
| through C.A.F. proceedings.
|
| -------------
|
| We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs
| of thieves, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort
| to un-make that monster.
| ncmncm wrote:
| We've _officially authorized_ law enforcement to be a
| thousand squabbling gangs of thieves. This is not to say
| they weren 't already. So un-making the fact will be much
| harder.
|
| Without authorization, the cop would have stolen the money
| anyway. The law just makes victims more resigned to it --
| if the money goes regardless, the cop might just as well
| get it. Maybe they'll even take less, that way?
| q1w2 wrote:
| > it began with an extra-legal demand
|
| That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter
| was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash &
| no investigation"
|
| This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing
| the money personally. This likely still would have been
| considered a seizure under asset forfeiture.
|
| I agree that it _should_ be entirely legal to carry around
| hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it
| looks very suspicious for someone who 's been previously
| convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around
| hundreds of thousands in small bills.
|
| Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in
| court prove the money was not gained through illegal means.
| The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is
| telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug
| money (this is obviously controversial).
|
| It's important to remember that every state is different -
| as is the Fed gov't.
|
| In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's
| nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost
| every state.
| hapless wrote:
| "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty
| plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture
| process was the _threat_ in that discussion! The officer
| 's _preferred_ option was that the money was seized
| without any investigation, without any process at all,
| via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it.
|
| I don't care _who_ was planning to pocket the money,
| specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary
| problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and
| departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary
| harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final
| disposition of the stolen money is secondary.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely
| is not.
|
| How does it jive with the constitution? Particularly the 4th
| amendment, but others as well.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I don't think the fact that the government loses most of the
| CAF cases means this isn't a problem. Winning the case will
| cost the person money and time, and they will be without
| their money for that time.
| bena wrote:
| Not to mention, this is a matter of "losing cases" not
| "returned assets wrongly seized".
|
| If it never becomes a case, the government can't exactly
| lose that case, can they?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| I agree that's a problem, but that's not what the OP was
| claiming.
|
| The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely
| is not.
|
| The OP asserted that the "terrorists won" even though CAF
| predates 9/11 and was created to combat organize crime.
| (CAF laws in the U.S. date back to the 1700s, but were
| infrequently used until, roughly 1920 when they were used
| to target organized crime during Prohibition. The modern
| federal CAF law was passed in the 1984, to fight the "war
| on drugs", specifically referring to the drug cartels, and
| were modeled on the Prohibition Era CAF laws.)
| aazaa wrote:
| > CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their
| money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that
| fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state
| of things.
|
| Got a source for that?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| That's its normal for the victims to get their money back
| without much of a hassle?
|
| No, because people showing the cops they have a legitimate
| reason to have the money and getting it back isn't news,
| it's just how the process normally works. (And note, this
| is my professional experience from when I was a public
| defender, which included helping clients recover assets
| seized pursuant to CAF claims.)
|
| It's like how there aren't any news articles about how most
| Tesla owners don't have problems with their car driving
| into obstacles every day. Normal isn't news.
|
| I agree that it sucks that someone has to prove they have a
| legitimate reason to have their own money (in cash), but
| that's the way the laws are currently written, and they
| were written that way because their intended use was
| against organized crime. Most of the abuse of CAF laws can
| be addressed by eliminating the incentives for LEAs to
| seize the money (namely, that it currently goes toward
| their budgets), since prior to that incentive CAF laws were
| rarely used except in organized crime cases.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Even if you could expect to get your money back most of
| the time, it's still a morally repugnant thing for armed
| agents of the government to do. As a society we should
| not tolerate it at all.
| mountainb wrote:
| They downvoted you because you speak the truth.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| The comment is in part correct and in part incorrect. As is
| the comment it responds to.
|
| _Please don 't comment about the voting on comments. It
| never does any good, and it makes boring reading._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| romwell wrote:
| >CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their
| money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that
| fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state
| of things.
|
| Yeah, and we have an awful lot of news like that.
|
| >The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely
| is not.
|
| _In practice_ , there have been enough cases to justify
| saying that.
|
| We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate
| cash when they see it _without reason_ and consequence.
|
| That, to my eyes, is _extralegal_.
|
| Whether the law gives them this _de-facto_ power is beside
| the point; the justice system clearly does.
| standardUser wrote:
| It's surreal to me how little political _or_ public support there
| is for ending these kinds of egregious government overreaches.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The polls I've seen put support for civil asset forfeiture to
| around 16%. So there's _plenty_ of public support to end it.
|
| The police are powerful though, and proceeds from this don't
| seem to terribly well accounted for in every PD. We know the
| feds and the local prosecutors get their cut, but after that...
| They are going to throw everything they can at keeping this
| gravy train alive.
| sk2020 wrote:
| I don't think regular voters like the policy; they just don't
| have any input. Plus there is only so much bandwidth for
| legislative process, and that's pretty log-jammed by some hot
| topic issues lately.
| standardUser wrote:
| While there may be some hot topics recently, I imagine there
| was downtime in the last few decades for Congress to stop law
| enforcement from systematically stealing from citizens who
| have been convicted of no crimes.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| The unchallenged near-deification of law enforcement and
| hardline "tough on crime" propaganda in the USA leads too many
| people to think a certain way:
|
| 1. If there was some civil asset forfeiture, the victim must've
| done something wrong because cops certainly can't be wrong.
|
| 2. If you've committed even a minor, non violent, crime, it
| doesn't matter how harsh the penalty is, you deserve it.
|
| 3. A majority of voters don't see themselves as criminals and
| aren't hassled by cops like some segments of the population
| are. They think this will never affect them, so they pay it
| little mind - until the day it does affect them.
| anyxdf wrote:
| If you make it a BLM issue, there is a small chance of
| something happening. That is the only chance.
|
| Though the Democrats would probably come up with some
| sophisticated explanation why this particular case does not
| fall under BLM.
|
| Remember that Biden is the guy who pushed the Clipper Chip.
| edoceo wrote:
| Clipper Chip: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
| g_sch wrote:
| Do you really think so? Both parties have assiduously avoided
| making any material legislative moves to address any issues
| raised by the BLM movement. Democrats have been more eager to
| make symbolic gestures (renaming things, removing statues,
| kneeling in the Rotunda wearing kente cloth) but I can't
| think of one substantive bill that was passed because the BLM
| movement championed it.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Especially when one party seemingly champions "civil rights" or
| "the little guy", and the other party champions "small
| government". And yet a government employee stealing someone's
| cash with no justification does not fall under any of those
| categories.
| lamontcg wrote:
| One party champions unrestricted capitalism for billionaires,
| the other party is in the pocket of pharma, banks and other
| large corporations (and the management-class that work in
| those businesses). Everything else they say is trying to sell
| you on something to try to buy your vote. We have one party
| of the 1% and another party of the 0.0002%.
| snicker7 wrote:
| As mentioned in the tweets, the bipartisan FAIR act is
| supposed to reform civil asset forfeiture.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Civil asset forfeiture has been a problem for 30+ years and
| multiple presidential administrations, of both parties.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > @RepWalberg filed legislation in Congress (FAIR Act) that
| could end these seizures. The bill's stuck in committee
| since April.
| pempem wrote:
| The broken system doesn't mean we don't have the right
| representation - we have to figure out how to amplify it
| and fix the system imho
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >reform
|
| I.e. screw slightly fewer people so public forgets about it
| but law enforcement gets to keep screwing people. They'll
| never get rid of it completely.
| standardUser wrote:
| There's a bill "in committee" for everything under the sun.
| It's meaningless.
| lisper wrote:
| That's because there is a widespread perception that if someone
| is engaging in a large scale cash transaction then there _must_
| be something shady going on even if there is no direct evidence
| of it (because _legitimate_ business is transacted using checks
| or wire transfers). This is especially true if the person
| carrying the cash has dark skin. (Having a criminal record didn
| 't help either in this case.)
| dogleash wrote:
| >a widespread perception that if someone is engaging in a
| large scale cash transaction then there must be something
| shady going on
|
| People who've never carried a sum of cash on their person are
| often terrified of the prospect and assume everyone is as
| frighted of as they are.
|
| I used to walk cash from a retail store safe to the bank as
| part of the morning routine. I've had so many lectures about
| why I should have never done it. I should have forgone my
| paid leisurely stroll and "just" arranged an armored truck.
| Or I should have quit over principal, like it was some sort
| of uniquely risky job compared to all the risky jobs out
| there and no owner should ever put on an employee. It wasn't
| even that much money. One day's worth of cash transactions
| from a small store in the age of credit cards.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| One of my tasks at my very first job as a 15 year old bag
| boy was to walk with the manager across the street to the
| night deposit box to drop off cash.
|
| The real risk in ghat endeavor was the manager convincing
| me to split the cash and run off with it...
| darthvoldemort wrote:
| No one has explained to me how this is still legal. This "law"
| has persisted until Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. Why does no
| one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this?
|
| Can no one mount a legal challenge against this?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Because once these things are in place they're there forever.
| The government and its institutions will never hand back power
| they have been granted.
|
| Remember the patriot act when the next round of powers come in
| because of covid.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| " The government and its institutions will never hand back
| power they have been granted."
|
| Completely false, there are countless instances of government
| giving up a power it previously had. Previous presidential
| administration rolled back environmental regulations, Covid
| regulations across the country have greatly lightened up
| since last year, there's no draft going on right now...
| willcipriano wrote:
| The elderly men and women who run the country want it that way.
| After a few decades of the same people in office year after
| year, what other explanation holds water?
| robbedpeter wrote:
| It's time for guillotines, or to make it more American,
| "Freedom Choppers."
|
| Things have gone too far, by all appearances, for the self
| corrective constitutional mechanisms to repair the situation.
|
| Otherwise, welcome to the new normal. Enjoy your cake.
| macksd wrote:
| There actually was a legal challenge against this, and right
| before a deadline to respond the TSA clarified it's current
| policy: https://www.aclu.org/cases/bierfeldt-v-
| napolitano?redirect=c...
|
| So if it happens, you can go to court for your individual case
| and possibly win, which according to this comment happens all
| the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28635430
|
| So more is needed, obviously. It seems to me that the status
| quo is that you're effectively guilty until proven innocent,
| and the people accusing you don't have much of an incentive to
| stop.
| vkou wrote:
| > Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage
| to stop this?
|
| Because the other side of the aisle will crap on you for doing
| it, and why burn political capital on a minor problem, when you
| have more pressing issues, like waging a war, digging through
| fallout of the largest economic disaster since the Great
| Depression, getting a crappy single-payer healthcare system
| through, filling three supreme court seats, dealing with a
| global pandemic, or keeping the wealthy and powerful happy.
|
| The only people who actually ground their elections on this
| kind of platform are anti-authoritarian contrarians, which have
| a rolling average of two seats in Congress and one in the
| Senate. Constituents, frankly, don't care about this.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Constituents ABSOLUTELY care about these things and other
| very important issues.
|
| The problem is, nobody cares about these things MORE than
| "stopping abortion", "muh guns", "fuck taxes", "status quo"
| that most incumbents scream about. We have a two party system
| that discourages caring about anything.
| handrous wrote:
| The US won't get significantly better unless our electoral
| system is fixed. That won't happen unless one of the two
| viable parties makes that a major policy goal... so, never.
| caf wrote:
| If the government can file 'in rem' against the pile of cash, can
| you also file a habeas corpus motion on behalf of the pile of
| cash?
|
| The entire idea of 'in rem' actions is absurd on the face of it,
| and is the kind of nonsense that causes people to lose faith in
| the justice system. There are often comments here that
| (correctly) castigate software engineer types as having too much
| of a game-playing 'gotcha' sense of how the law works - or ought
| to work - but _" Department of Justice vs. $137,425 in US
| Currency"_ is exactly the same kind of too-tricky-by-half game-
| playing, only by the lawmakers.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| "Flying with cash is legal".
|
| No, it clearly isn't. The law says that a government employee can
| take your money as long as they write some words on a bit of
| paper, and if any of that money ever came in to contact with any
| drug (which are legal in many states), or for many other reasons,
| then they can keep it forever.
|
| Claiming it is legal is just a way to get more clients.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| It's legal for a person to fly with cash, but not for the cash
| itself. That's the core of civil forfeiture. The person is not
| being charged with any crimes, the money is 'detained' for
| investigation.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to
| do so, but there are a lot of bad players out there (TSA
| included) and I would not want to risk it.
|
| You could deposit the money in a national bank (JPM, BoA, etc),
| call ahead and plan the withdraw from a local branch. I'm sure
| there are other players in this marker who would only charge a
| few grand to provide you the cash on site if you had the money in
| a trusted escrow. To me, that is cheap insurance, but also to me
| it's worth the $70 bucks to have my bank wire the money instantly
| to any bank account in the US.
|
| Not saying this guy did wrong, just saying you can't trust anyone
| to be on their best behavior when they see $115K.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| I'd bet this type of behavior from the government is what causes
| "domestic terrorism"...not just the "radicals" mentioned in
| headlines.
| rablackburn wrote:
| I'm not aware of any domestic terror attacks (shootings?) where
| asset forfeiture has even been raised as a contributing factor.
|
| The Las Vegas shooter is kinda-money related in that he was a
| problem gambler. That's the closest I can think of.
|
| Do you have any citation where this has happened? Because if
| not, that's probably a pretty poor "bet" you're making...
| mindslight wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
|
| The IRC is distinct from civil asset forfeiture, but they're
| both obtuse bureaucracies that care not for the individuals
| they crush.
|
| (idk what's with the downvotes. What I said is pretty factual
| unless you're like an accountant)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| When people can't get recourse through the courts they go
| around the courts. Killdozer dude is the quintessential
| example.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| This isn't gonna stop until the people who get screwed start
| buying bulldozers and getting their own justice. It's just too
| lucrative for the courts to strike it down until striking it down
| causes less problems for them than not. Follow the incentives.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| As if stealing your money wasn't bad enough, often a little is
| skimmed off the top if they are forced to return it.[0]
|
| [0]https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-
| agent...
| Y_Y wrote:
| If you don't have a bank account and aren't in a rush to move
| your money you can just overpay on your taxes and make about 4%
| from the IRS until you claim it back at least 45 days later.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| How do you make 4%?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-23 23:01 UTC)