[HN Gopher] Nevada court shuts down police use of federal loopho...
___________________________________________________________________
Nevada court shuts down police use of federal loophole for civil
forfeiture
Author : greyface-
Score : 400 points
Date : 2025-01-15 05:15 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ij.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ij.org)
| courseofaction wrote:
| The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any
| aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?
| spencerflem wrote:
| why would I do that? :p
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _CMV?_
|
| Convince me...variably? Cytomegalovirus?
| SllX wrote:
| Reddit lingo. Change My View.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that before.
| Let's not do that.
| SllX wrote:
| 1) Let's not prescribe language-use on the web instead.
| Something that originates in one place does not always
| stay in one place. How does that sound?
|
| 2) It's abbreviated in every single thread on the sub in
| which it originated:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/
|
| 3) Now that you have seen it and received the
| explanation, you will recognize it and can be the
| messenger in the future.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 1) I think word use is an ongoing process and sometimes I
| want to participate in that negotiation.
|
| 2) Showing that a phrase is abbreviated on the specific
| subreddit named after that phrase is one of the least
| convincing arguments possible for general use of that
| abbreviation.
|
| 3) I could, but that doesn't sound like something I
| particularly want to happen.
| SllX wrote:
| > I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that
| before.
|
| When you phrased your original post like this, I thought
| that meant you were familiar with the common phrase but
| somehow missed the abbreviation. So bullet point 2 was
| not an argument, but context.
|
| Here's an argument though: being part of the ongoing
| process of negotiating word use usually takes the form of
| choosing which words and phrases to make part of your own
| vernacular and which ones to omit. Nobody wants to hear
| "let's not do that" nor "don't do that", especially over
| such a mundane abbreviation.
| eesmith wrote:
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says
| 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| Chupa mi vagina
| cm2187 wrote:
| Why not? If you want good meat, give financial incentives to
| your butcher. If you want good policing, give financial
| incentives to your police. The problem isn't the presence of
| financial incentives, but badly designed financial incentives.
| moomin wrote:
| The problem's deeper than that: and financial incentive you
| design, you provide a financial incentive to abuse it. This
| is why so few people recommend metric-based compensation.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Not sure where you saw that few people recommend that. In a
| company, managers are routinely incentivised based on
| specific metrics (good or bad, typically budget plus some
| softer metrics). It's the norm, not the exception.
|
| It was even the case in communist russia by the way. With
| horribly designed metrics, like maximising tonnage of a
| factory output, which lead factory managers to ditch better
| product for lesser, heavier products. I think it was
| described in the book Red Plenty.
|
| Again the problem isn't incentives, it is badly designed
| incentives.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It's the norm, not the exception.
|
| That doesn't make it good. In both cases, it's probably
| heavily responsible for the enshittification we see
| everywhere.
|
| Every metric winds up gamed.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| > If you want good policing, give financial incentives to
| your police.
|
| But civil asset forfeiture isn't incentivizing good policing.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Agree, that's an example of a badly designed incentive.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Depends on the definition of the financial incentive. If it
| means bonus, then this doesn't handle cases of incompetence
| or malice, they will still get their salary. If that includes
| salary too e.g. financial penalties, then you'll get police
| doing things specifically to preserve their salary and
| instead of focusing on their core responsibilities.
|
| Just carrots, whatever the definition, won't fix everything,
| there are assholes in every profession, you need sticks too.
| l72 wrote:
| If your SRE gets a bonus every time they fix an issue in
| production, you would start incentivizing them to make sure
| production has lots of issues they can easily fix and get
| their bonus.
|
| If you de-incentivize them every time there is a problem,
| they will instead try to hide problems.
|
| How do you come up with fair incentivization?
| blindriver wrote:
| How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point?
| It's one of the most disgusting corrupt things I've seen in my
| lifetime any I can't believe both parties support this.
| nadermx wrote:
| If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense
| as to why
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I read that as "those who watch it already know".
|
| Could you or someone else share what's shown in that series?
| I'm not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The Wire is about the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is
| responsible for probably 75% of the shockingly oppressive
| laws still on the books, with most of the balance being the
| War on Terror.
| defrost wrote:
| There's a scene in which an aide for a city politician is
| stopped leaving known drug dealing actors and the car is
| found to have bag stuffed with a _large_ amount of cash
| which is seized.
|
| The point moving forward is will anybody _claim_ the cash
| and offer an explanation as to where it came from.
|
| The above "you'll know why" appears to carry an implicit
| "because all cash with no receipt is criminal proceeds".
|
| The problem with that is stories abound of Police seizing
| cash and other assets and keeping them, spending money,
| auctioning goods, etc that were never criminal proceeds ..
| or rather never _proved_ to be criminal proceeds.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Okay, but there's a world of difference between a large
| amount of cash that nobody wants to claim because police
| know it's drug money versus an innocent person that the
| police have stolen money from without any true suspicion
| and the person has been fighting in the courts for years
| to get their money back.
| defrost wrote:
| I fully agree, but I'm merely the person that expanded on
| the lazy _The Wire_ comment above.
|
| @blindriver was correct (IMHO) to rail against civil
| forfeiture and @nadermx responded with a low effort
| opaque un-HN worthy quip.
| moomin wrote:
| The Wire is a great show, but it's still copaganda. Dude
| managed to create a five year show set in the Baltimore
| Police Department without mentioning racism once.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Reminds me of the time Frontline(?) had some cameras
| following around the Newark drug task force (post scandal
| so they knew to be on their best behavior) and they
| couldn't hold it together long enough to make enough
| footage hour or so episode. They initiated a baseless stop
| and frisk on camera and then dogpiled the guy when he said
| to leave him alone.
| sneak wrote:
| Everyone viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the state has
| stopped using cash, so leaving this in place as an additional
| risk to carrying or using cash is a nice bonus in the war
| against financial privacy and freedom.
|
| One more nail in the coffin of being able to transact in ways
| either unknown to or unapproved by the state.
|
| In 2011 I spoke at the CCC about why it's essential to have
| free and censorship-resistant payments that the state cannot
| veto:
|
| https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...
|
| Always use and carry cash. Always tip in cash. Don't do
| business with places that don't accept cash. Store some cash in
| your home and your car (hidden) for emergencies.
| tdb7893 wrote:
| I can believe it. Both parties are pretty "law and order" and
| rely on relationships with the police. Why piss off an
| important group of people for an issue that isn't going to sway
| any votes.
|
| Reform here is something which would presumably have a large
| amount of support but that's enough to get a law passed or the
| US would look very different, there are tons of popular things
| that will never be laws.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this
| point?_
|
| Isn't part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before
| they make it through appeals? I'm almost ready to PAC an
| elected prosecutor who commits to taking a test case to SCOTUS.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Isn't part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before
| they make it through appeals?
|
| Not really, cases on civil forfeiture do make it to the US
| Supreme Court, the most recent case being decided in 2024.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Cases the prosecutors think they can win make it. But OPs
| statement is valid, prosecutors can just drop any case they
| fear will set a precedent and under our system that is the
| end of the discussion. OPs point is it gives prosecutors an
| additional thumb on the scale when it come to court
| oversight.
| db48x wrote:
| It has its roots in something very necessary: disposal of
| abandoned property, especially illegal goods for which no owner
| can be identified. Of course it has gotten slightly out of
| hand.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| But most abandoned property doesn't go through that process,
| does it?
| db48x wrote:
| Garbage found at the side of the street, no. A bag of
| heroin found in an abandoned building, certainly.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| My point is, it really takes the "need" out of the
| situation.
|
| We have perfectly good ways to handle lost items without
| forfeiture. Using those systems, the confiscation problem
| disappears. And if anyone claims a bag of heroin the same
| way they would claim a lost phone... let them. Then
| arrest them after they do that.
| db48x wrote:
| As amusing as that would be, forfeiture is how you get
| judicial oversight of the process. If someone wants to
| claim their misplaced drugs then they have to show up at
| the trial and defend their right to posses them.
|
| Consider a more nuanced, and more common, case: a
| shipment of batteries labeled as Apple(tm) products
| arrives in port. The shipping address indicates that they
| aren't going to Apple, but to one Louis Rossmann. Clearly
| these must be counterfeits, right? Nobody else could
| possibly be allowed to own items with "Apple(tm)" printed
| on them, after all. Customs seizes the shipment with the
| intent to destroy them. If Louis wants them he can go to
| court to prove that he has a right to own batteries with
| the word "Apple(tm)" on them.
|
| Clearly we want Louis to be able to clear up the
| misunderstanding and recover his property (genuine
| batteries salvaged from damaged phones), and clearly
| customs doesn't want to risk storing them forever. Both
| parties want a definitive end state; they don't want the
| disagreement to drag on forever. And certainly Louis
| wants the oversight of a judge who can ensure that
| procedure is followed correctly, and that it is the same
| procedure that was documented ahead of time. It might be
| an annoying procedure, but at least it is one that he can
| learn about in advance.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If they suspect the batteries are illegal to have, then
| once they confirm intentional ownership the government
| should have a simple choice: give them back or prosecute,
| and if they lose the case then give them back anyway. He
| should not have to proactively prove a right to own them.
|
| For items like cash and cars that are not themselves
| illegal to have and not evidence, then it's even simpler:
| give them back, and 99% of the time don't take them from
| people in the first place. Confiscation of ill-gotten
| goods should happen after a trial proves they're ill-
| gotten.
|
| What are you worried about with judicial oversight? Is it
| specifically the case where the owner is unknown? Because
| in normal cases I think my suggestion has plenty of
| judicial oversight.
| db48x wrote:
| > and 99% of the time don't take them from people in the
| first place.
|
| I agree with that part :)
|
| But remember we are talking about times when the owner
| really is unknown. If you're actually importing
| counterfeit goods then you probably aren't putting your
| own name on the shipping label. Even if Louis exists,
| he's probably just an unwitting participant. And to get
| the batteries back all he has to do is show up and assert
| under oath that they're his and that they're not
| counterfeit.
|
| Also, I don't say that this is the only possible way to
| run things. It's just the way that we solve certain
| problems, one that we decided upon long ago. It's
| definitely being abused and certainly needs to be fixed,
| but Chesterton's Fence is relevant. You must know why a
| thing exists and what problems it is solving before
| you're allowed to tear something down. Those problems
| will not go away, so whatever changes we make we'll still
| need to be able to solve them.
|
| And it does have one very good feature: judicial
| oversight forces law enforcement to document everything
| that they take on the public record. Those records are
| kept by an independent branch of the government, too. In
| principle people ought to be using those records against
| elected officials to vote out incumbents who abuse asset
| forfeiture.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > But remember we are talking about times when the owner
| really is unknown.
|
| And what I'm saying is you don't need civil forfeiture
| for that. Use the normal process for abandoned property.
| The idea civil forfeiture being "rooted" in how we handle
| abandoned property is a bad excuse because we don't use
| civil forfeiture for abandoned property.
|
| > And to get the batteries back all he has to do is show
| up and assert under oath that they're his and that
| they're not counterfeit.
|
| Is this how you want things to work or how you're
| suggesting they actually work? I'm pretty sure it's not
| anywhere near that easy to get your items back. You need
| a bunch of evidence.
| AngryData wrote:
| Corruption is a large part of what funds our criminal justice
| system, and politicians will never do anything to make them
| appear like they are against law enforcement or "soft on
| crime".
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Same reason it took half a century for every other rights
| violation to get in front of a court that matters. The agencies
| and governments violating people's rights play all sorts of
| games to prevent it so that they can keep the gravy train
| rolling.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| First party who would propose it would lose support for
| cops/justice system workers.
| opentokix wrote:
| USA is truly a fucked up country
| lolc wrote:
| The fact that we read about single instances like this means
| some important things are not that fucked. Namely reporting on
| police misconduct happened and finally the money was returned.
|
| Looking at this the US is not particularly fucked. I wish I
| could set a higher bar for the world, but don't expect this to
| change fast.
| elp wrote:
| This. In my country a stop for a traffic offense is more
| likely to be for a bribe than for a ticket and if they found
| the money the officers would just keep it for themselves.
|
| On the other hand we clearly have much better banks the the
| USA does. Out of interest why other than crime or dodging tax
| would you ever carry large amounts of cash rather than just
| do a bank transfer?
| ninalanyon wrote:
| A bank transfer requires both parties to reveal their
| account number. I have been told by several people in both
| the US and the UK that this is a risky thing to do. In fact
| in those countries where there is no national register of
| residents and identifying oneself relies on things like
| utility bills that show your address rather than on a
| unique ID (personnummer in Norway) that a bank, for
| instance, can verify online they might actually be right,
| or right-ish at least.
|
| I rarely hear of identity theft in Norway where banking
| relies on common ID services (BankID for instance) and the
| folkeregister (population register) but it seems to be a
| major problem in, for instance, the UK where there is no
| equivalent.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws
| criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops
| can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any
| way.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such
| loopholes_
|
| Loopholes aren't illegal, they're a problem with the law. Using
| the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in
| earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose,
| but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying
| "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset
| forfeiture in any way is a felony."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law
| enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way
| is a felony."_
|
| Given felonies require prosecution, this gives prosecutors
| draconian enforcement powers over police. Maybe that's
| okay. I suspect it would facilitate corruption.
|
| Better: remove qualified immunity for asset forfeitures.
| BrenBarn wrote:
| > Given felonies require prosecution, this gives
| prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police.
| Maybe that's okay. I suspect it would facilitate
| corruption.
|
| Civil asset forfeiture already facilitates corruption,
| but it's worse because that corruption is targeted at
| innocent random civilians.
|
| > Better: remove qualified immunity for asset
| forfeitures.
|
| Even better: remove qualified immunity for everything.
| immibis wrote:
| Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to
| not prosecute, using forfeited money?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not
| prosecute, using forfeited money?_
|
| No, I'm saying "civil asset forfeiture in any way" covers
| a hell of a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that
| discretion a hell of a lot of power.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > _Given felonies require prosecution, this gives
| prosecutors draconian enforcement powers over police_
|
| You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers
| over everyone else.
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture
| impossible to execute.
|
| Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil
| asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then
| would be "so what do we do with property that should be
| seized by the state?"
|
| The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab
| containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing
| $200,000. What do?
| BrenBarn wrote:
| > That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture
| impossible to execute.
|
| Assuming such a thing exists. . .
|
| > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab
| containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing
| $200,000. What do?
|
| I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present
| changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few
| dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go
| through a court proceeding to establish that the money
| was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil
| asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that
| process.
| dgoldstein0 wrote:
| I'd bet this is covered by other laws. Practically if you
| come back to claim it you probably expose yourself to
| being advised of running the meth lab. If it's unclaimed
| it's then abandoned property, and pretty sure there's
| laws of how that gets dealt with.
| jdasdf wrote:
| >That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture
| impossible to execute.
|
| There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab
| containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing
| $200,000. What do?
|
| Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their
| probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
| echoangle wrote:
| So you should be able to keep money acquired with illegal
| acts? If you become a millionaire by selling drugs and
| get caught, you go to prison but after you get out, the
| money is yours?
|
| Or what does ,,wrap it up in their probate" mean?
| cherryteastain wrote:
| If you get convicted the court can seize the funds as
| part of the sentence
|
| If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was
| no crime
| echoangle wrote:
| > > The fire department gets called to an exploded meth
| lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing
| $200,000. What do?
|
| > Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their
| probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
|
| The example was a meth lab though and the claim was "This
| should be nothing to do with the police.". Is operating a
| meth lab not a crime?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| The context is "what to do with the $200000 we just
| found", not investigating crimes in general.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _context is "what to do with the $200000 we just
| found"_
|
| If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it,
| it's unclaimed property [1].
|
| [1] https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money
| Supermancho wrote:
| Each state and federal body has process for it. It's not
| uncommon to encounter unclaimed property (including
| cash), especially with poorly/inaccurately described bank
| accounts. eg https://www.fdic.gov/bank-
| failures/unclaimed-property-inform...
|
| Allowing specific state actors to actively claim these
| goods via civil forfeiture (and bypass these systems) has
| always been improper. Law enforcement is untrustworthy in
| many locales, so this is unsurprising.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >so what do we do with property that should be seized by
| the state?
|
| Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car.
|
| It hurts society less to not seize things than to have
| the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of
| suspicion of involvement in a crime.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| Use criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a
| conviction. Shouldn't be too hard to secure in those
| circumstances.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Make a law the the police can only operate under criminal
| law, not civil law. Problem solved instantly and with
| common sense. Anything the police do should have the
| protections/restrictions/rules/requirements of criminal
| law, not the looser standards used by civil law.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| >"Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset
| forfeiture in any way is a felony."
|
| Civil asset forfeiture means a lot more than what you think
| it does.
|
| Do you remember a story a couple of years ago about a
| couple who foreclosed on a local Bank of America branch
| after Bank of America wrongfully started foreclosure
| proceedings on their home? That's civil asset forfeiture.
|
| The sheriff's deputies who went with them to enforce the
| foreclosure are not criminals.
|
| If you are a freelancer and your client doesn't pay you and
| you get a court order to collect what you are owed: civil
| asset forfeiture.
|
| A clerk filing the paperwork to get you your money is not a
| criminal.
|
| Even the ACLU is fighting civil asset forfeiture ABUSE
| because as actual lawyers they understand what it means.
|
| https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/asset-forfeiture-abuse
| FireBeyond wrote:
| There is a really simple difference here.
|
| The couple who foreclosed on a BoA branch got a court
| order to do so, otherwise the deputies would not have
| enforced it.
|
| Seizing money in your trunk because you had a tail light
| out because you have a "suspicion" that the money is
| somehow criminal does not have the same standard.
|
| I don't think many people have a concern with that.
|
| So sure, maybe, "any attempt by law enforcement to carry
| out civil asset forfeiture absent a valid court order
| shall be a felony".
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Or maybe law enforcement should only be empowered to
| carry out criminal asset forfeiture.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| My preference is 100% of fines and siezed property should go to
| the Social Security Administration.
|
| Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the
| presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes
| that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and
| corruption.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and
| is therefore essentially extortion and corruption_
|
| I hate civil forefeiture, but let's not get lost in hyperbole.
| It _facilitates_ extortion and corruption, but so can almost
| any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest
| and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating
| probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private
| goods without compensation.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost
| any police power.
|
| I'll add taxes to the list.
| krispyfi wrote:
| It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is
| that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the
| money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money
| itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary
| that this is accepted as normal!
| lawn wrote:
| It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of
| an entire house because someone once had drugs there.
|
| There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their
| house because their son once was caught with drugs in the
| house.
| coldtea wrote:
| In general, it's pretty messed up that there's an
| exceptionalism about drug related crime (and some other
| kinds of crime).
|
| Crime is crime. If they don't take custody of a house
| because some kind of crime X happened there, they shouldn't
| do it for drug related cases either. They can always arrest
| the person dealing the drugs and forgeit the drugs
| themselves.
| aqme28 wrote:
| It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The
| right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
| papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
| seizures..."
|
| You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out
| saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
| potato3732842 wrote:
| It doesn't make sense because it's insane mental gymnastics
| being used to justify obviously unconstitutional conduct.
| The bill of rights is very, very, clear on this.
| braiamp wrote:
| Nah, it's not. Things sometimes needs to be spelled out
| so that there's ZERO wiggle room. That's why the
| universal declaration of human rights had to be so
| extensive and verbose. There are people that will justify
| a missing comma as their actions being allowed by the
| constitution.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The entire point of enumerating rights in a founding
| document is that it will be at odds with future
| interests.
|
| _Of course_ someone in power is going to try and twist
| the meaning to their own gain.
|
| That inevitable desire is literally why the rights needed
| to be included in the first place.
| braiamp wrote:
| And yet, the US constitution by all metrics is the one
| lagging behind every other constitution about
| guaranteeing rights. The US had a solid first draft, it's
| time to update it.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| by which metrics? which other countries?
|
| The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a
| lot of rights
| Supermancho wrote:
| > The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it.
|
| That's what the amendment system is for.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| It's obviously not, or you wouldn't find so many people
| (successfully!) arguing against your interpretation.
|
| That's one of the problems with a codified constitution
| that's as ossified as the one in the US: the language
| used gets interpreted, and so the meaning of the language
| depends on the interpretations favoured by whoever's
| currently holding the reins.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The bill of rights applies to criminal law. Civil asset
| forfeiture falls under 'civil' law (hence the name) which
| works under very different rules (for example the
| standard for a finding of guilt in much lower for civil
| law than criminal). The US Justice system routinely
| bypasses controls/limits/restrictions placed on it by
| moving things over to the 'civil law' side.
| Retric wrote:
| The idea that the government can invoke civil law outside
| of contract disputes or similar matters is inherently
| problematic due to the lower burden of proof.
|
| It's only appropriate when any private citizen could do
| the same thing. IE: The Army suing a supplier for
| supplying them with a defective bullets is they same
| thing anyone who buys large quantities of bullets could
| do, but people would need to voluntarily enter into such
| relationships before this applies.
| thatcat wrote:
| This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in
| your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step
| out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible
| assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands
| behind your back.
| krapp wrote:
| Just don't ask for a "lawyer,dawg" because they don't have
| one of those.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-
| crime/wp/2017/11/02...
| coldtea wrote:
| It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions
| like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the
| law.
|
| Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation
| of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post
| office...
| chipsa wrote:
| You don't have an expectation of privacy for the outside of
| your mail, because people can see the outside. The inside
| of the mail you do have an expectation of privacy, because
| someone can't just see the inside of your mail. Unless it's
| smelly, because people have noses.
| okamiueru wrote:
| "It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search.
| We're not searching _you_ , just that stuff that is attached
| to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"
| buran77 wrote:
| > but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself),
| constitutional protections don't apply.
|
| The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate
| objects, isn't considered "property".
|
| Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in
| order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many
| types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or
| the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension
| of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't
| property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may
| be deprived of property without due process of law"
| constitutional article.
| gus_massa wrote:
| Very interesting. So I can walk safetly in the street with
| a million dollar necklace, but not with $1000 in cash?
| buran77 wrote:
| As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace
| around your neck... But you're safe from _legal_ civil
| forfeiture. _Abusive_ forfeiture is a whole other matter
| entirely and (IANAL) I 'm willing to bet the ones
| committing the abuse will get the presumption of
| innocence and you will have to prove the abuse.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _As safe as you can be with a million dollar necklace
| around your neck..._
|
| It's an easy way of declaring ones badassness.
|
| Looking at Mr T, people had to ask themselves, "What kind
| of person feels confident enough to walk around with that
| much money on his neck?"
| clifdweller wrote:
| not necessarily; If the police recently busted a <gun
| ring/drug deal/insert generic illegal activity> paying
| for goods with that same style necklace(or any mental
| gymnastics to link the item type to a crime) then they
| could seize it as surely it is part of illegal activity.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| So bitcoins are safe, i assume. And, as a bonus, a dog
| can't smell it:)
| buran77 wrote:
| I think so but then again so is a bank card. The card
| itself your property. And the money it gives access to
| are with the bank which means the concept of civil
| forfeiture no longer works (the police can't just frisk
| the bank and take the money).
| shkkmo wrote:
| You're just making things up. Civil Forfeiture is used for
| non-money items regularly, the definition of money has
| nothing to do with it.
| moate wrote:
| Cars are not money, and are often
| confiscated/impounded/sold for Civil Forfeiture.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| >It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is
| that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the
| money), but only accusing an inanimate object
|
| That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It
| originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal
| with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in
| international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and
| with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents
| with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense
| in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the
| United States, driving down a highway in the United States,
| and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense
| because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Even then that would imply some legal personhood on the
| part of the vessel and it's operations, much like a
| registered company.
|
| To me it's a leap too far to assign it to a specific
| object. It has no ongoing operations, it's not a fluid,
| "living" thing.
|
| But here we are. This is where a more modern supreme court
| ruling would come in handy I guess.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would
| come in handy I guess
|
| I'd hate to see how _this_ modern supreme court rules.
| Odds are likely to be in favor of keeping this policy,
| especially if some of that money is used to buy an RV or
| fund fancy vacations
| lesuorac wrote:
| But when you fly people who clearly have an owner
| (themself) to another country and they don't have a
| passport, the country holds the airline accountable.
|
| Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for
| loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a
| ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like extend
| it slightly more to also record the legality.
| chipsa wrote:
| If you never want to get captains to be willing to sail
| to your ports again... also, manifests can be wrong, or
| insufficiently descriptive. Manifest may accurately say a
| container is full of machine parts. But neglect to
| mention the machine they are parts of is a machine gun.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > But when you fly people who clearly have an owner
| (themself) to another country and they don't have a
| passport, the country holds the airline accountable.
|
| > Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for
| loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a
| ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like
| extend it slightly more to also record the legality.
|
| Just because an airline lets you fly somewhere, you can
| still be rejected at the other end. I think it's a bit
| much to expect every captain to know the legality of
| everything in their hold, to all destinations, and
| enforce that.
| jdeibele wrote:
| Airlines seem to have a policy of passports need to be
| valid (not expire) for six months after the trip.
|
| Our daughter was going overseas and we had to get her
| passport renewed because it would expire 3 months after
| she would have gotten home. The country was fine with
| that but there was a chance that she would show up at the
| airport and the airline would not allow her to board
| because it was less than 6 months.
|
| If the airline lets them fly and they're rejected, the
| airline has to get them back and the airline doesn't want
| to risk that.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > accusing an inanimate object (the money itself)
|
| yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of
| all reason
|
| It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so
| we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what
| presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved
| guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty,
| period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law
| you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of
| innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like
| in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
| grajaganDev wrote:
| That is sophistry.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Then I should be able to sue the police departments property.
| Gosub100 vs copcar. They can then file a claim to get it back
| from me.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Sorry bro, qualified immunity was invented by the courts to
| prevent that.
| tart-lemonade wrote:
| SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to
| Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were
| watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v.
| Texas (2013).
|
| Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was
| considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self
| incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to
| keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must
| explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or
| your silence can be used against you, even if that silence
| was in response to informal questioning on the street with no
| intention of arrest.
|
| It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the
| modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have
| actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one
| has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for
| two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the
| ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public
| defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law
| (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law
| school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert
| Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer
| worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms,
| to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")
|
| Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went
| to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are
| completely detached from the reality of what the average
| American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to
| be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've
| seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't
| understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> the standard explanation is that because they aren't
| accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing
| an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional
| protections don't apply
|
| That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand
| it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a
| person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't
| think they give back the exact same physical cash that was
| taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are
| lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to
| a bank and deposited.
| bradgessler wrote:
| Imagine if the same logic was used for a criminal defense:
| "Your honor, I didn't kill $VICTIM, it was the $WEAPON that
| killed $VICTIM".
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >unlike some other countries
|
| Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around
| the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts
| of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law.
| There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called
| presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar
| to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
| kawsper wrote:
| UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and
| Public Order Act:
|
| > You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your
| defence if you do not mention when questioned something which
| you later rely on in court.
| maccard wrote:
| I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until
| proven otherwise at all.
|
| I read that as "Holding back information that may be
| pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
|
| It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is
| trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal,
| it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
| refurb wrote:
| No, the US is far better.
|
| Silence can't be used against you.
|
| That is better than silence being used against use.
|
| Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to
| that point.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| It can in fact. You should read "You Have the Right to
| Remain Innocent" by James Duane - the guy who went viral
| on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to
| the police and later tried very hard to delete all
| uploads of this video. Because in the real world that
| strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all.
| Especially since the Supreme Court massively weakened the
| Fifth Amendement in 2013.
| echoangle wrote:
| > the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why
| you should never talk to the police and later tried very
| hard to delete all uploads of this video
|
| Do you have a source for that?
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| He mentions it in this talk for example:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
|
| It also seems like he succeeded, because the original and
| all reuploads except for some ultra low-quality copies
| are gone from youtube.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| The bit about where money from the book would go was
| hilarious and also a great example of stereotypical
| attorney humor.
| echoangle wrote:
| There's no mention in this of him trying to delete
| uploads (or I missed it, do you have a timestamp?).
|
| And also, the original lecture isn't a reupload but found
| on the channel of his own university (both at the time of
| the first and the second lecture):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| He mentions it several times throughout the talk. It's
| been a while since I've seen it, so I don't remember the
| times. But the whole talk basically tries to publicly
| revert his earlier view from the old presentation. The
| low quality dupe you found was uploaded years after the
| original video.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert
| his earlier view from the old presentation.
|
| Damn, you need to watch it again. He only updates the
| advice to say that one needs to be explicit about their
| intention to remain silent and await an attorney.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| > and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this
| video.
|
| I didn't know that, that's pretty interesting.
|
| > Because in the real world that strategy is more likely
| to get you convicted after all.
|
| I don't think that's true. That's true for not
| cooperating, but you should do so with a lawyer. You
| shouldn't' talk to police until you get a lawyer. That's
| all.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| If you watch the talk they linked to you can see that the
| advice has been updated to be "you must explicitly tell
| the officers you want a lawyer" and it has nothing to do
| with retracting his previous advice. The original "Don't
| Talk to the Police" upload seems to still be there
| (uploaded 12 years ago). Do wait for your attorney to be
| present but also explicitly tell the officers that you
| will refrain from any more discussion until then.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Silence can't be used against you_
|
| It sure can, but in more hypocritical and roundabout
| ways:
|
| The cops take suspision on your silence, and push extra
| hard to get you, instead of letting you go after a
| routine questioning.
|
| Or the prosecution is offended by your silence and throws
| the book at you.
|
| Technically both get to swear that your silence was never
| an issue, while both being motivated to fuck you over
| because of it.
| maccard wrote:
| > Silence can't be used against you. > Conflating that
| with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
|
| They're two sides of the same coin. Let's say you are
| being accused of crime X, and you know you're innocent of
| it, and can prove it, because your spouse did it/you were
| hooking up with a congressman on grindr at the time/you
| were doing something else illegal you don't want to admit
| to/you believe the US justice system is fair and
| impartial.
|
| The sentencing for said federal crime is N years. The
| prosecution charging you with crime X, plus Y plus Z with
| a potential max sentence of M years, or you can take a
| plea for N-2 years".
|
| It all boils down to "are you willing to gamble spending
| M (where M >>>> N-2) years in prison based on an
| accusation designed to intimidate you".
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _No, the US is far better._
|
| > _Silence can't be used against you._
|
| As sibling comments have mentioned, not (no longer?)
| true.
|
| "Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth..."
|
| > _Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging
| questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme
| Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence
| against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is
| voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim
| the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply
| saying nothing won't do, according to the ruling._
|
| * https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-
| you-want...
|
| "Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the
| Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect's silence as
| evidence of guilt"
|
| * https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293
| -44b7...
| dataflow wrote:
| > I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent
| until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding
| back information that may be pertinent in an
| investigation will be looked upon poorly".
|
| Could you explain how one can exercise their right to
| silence without holding back information?
| shkkmo wrote:
| The US right to remain silent is different from the
| presumption of innocence.
| dataflow wrote:
| They're different concepts but they're very tightly
| coupled (hence why both were being discussed here). If
| you could be presumed guilty then your right to remain
| silent would be rendered moot. And the entire reason the
| right to remain silent was established was so that
| innocent people wouldn't be deemed guilty (and thus
| punished, tortured, etc.) merely based on being coerced
| into testifying against themselves. Without it you would
| be as good as guilty.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| That's not presuming guilt. And I'm pretty sure the other
| commenter wasn't referring to the UK as _some countries._
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of
| innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that
| code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it
| recently so couldn't say which those are.
| lores wrote:
| The Napoleonic Code is a civil code, not penal, so
| presumption of innocence is not part of it. Regardless, all
| European countries have presumption of innocence, except in
| very specific cases (like England's libel law).
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| The Napoleonic Code was civil law, nor criminal law. It
| doesn't deal with these issues. And it treated the burden
| of evidence similarly to how modern civil procedures do.
| France and all other countries that emerged from it have a
| variation of _In dubio pro reo._
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > pretty universal around the globe
|
| except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law")
| countries like China where if the police say you're guilty,
| you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I'm afraid that this happened, where it is so plainly and
| fundamentally wrong, expresses that something is fundamentally
| wrong with the police, and I think it is across the USA? as
| this behaviour is I think widespread?
| darreninthenet wrote:
| We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as
| harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police
| don't consider normal). The seized items were either being
| actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have
| been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant
| earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house
| with no other explanation)
| Over2Chars wrote:
| As you note it's not built into other legal systems. In which
| case, those other legal systems aren't automatically corrupt or
| based on extortion.
|
| A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the
| protection of citizens, etc.
|
| Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the
| universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the
| time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like
| Roman justice.
|
| This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly
| innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't
| work as it should.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should
|
| And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes
| the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
|
| Have you lived in countries where the police can just take
| away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto
| themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Forfeiture is different from seizure. Seizure is perfectly
| legal, and even ought to be required pending completion of a
| court case.
|
| Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture
| does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some
| circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often
| and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on
| seized property.
|
| I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with
| it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of
| 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a
| violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
|
| Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process.
| However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled
| against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent
| owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove
| that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
|
| I recommend reading 983 article guidelines for asset
| forfeiture/seizure:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983
|
| It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor
| returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they
| are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are
| not so speedy anymore.
|
| I'm not a lawyer of course
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| It's a very US thing that for every fine principle such as
| presumption of innocence, there is an equal and opposite
| "loophole" or way to bend the rules, that is allowed to make
| that principle far less effective.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Another example would be the fine principle of democracy, and
| the loopholes of gerrymandering and selective voter
| suppression.
|
| It makes more sense when you ask "Who bears the burden of
| these loopholes?" and the answer is always "They disadvantage
| people of colour".
| ruthmarx wrote:
| That's not a US thing, that's an every country everywhere
| thing.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| I disagree; the gap is way wider in the US than the
| countries that the US would like to compare itself to. It's
| easy to say "they're all as bad as each other", but it's
| usually inaccurate, and always dismissive.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| Can you support your argument with some examples?
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Can you? I'm happy to simply continue to hold a different
| opinion to you.
|
| You are being dismissive of the issue though; and it's
| never helpful.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| > Can you?
|
| Generally the burden is on the person making the positive
| claim.
|
| > I'm happy to simply continue to hold a different
| opinion to you.
|
| Sure, I have no qualms taking your opinion as just
| speculation/belief/Ameriphobia.
|
| > You are being dismissive of the issue though; and it's
| never helpful.
|
| Strong claims require strong evidence. Without evidence
| it's reasonable to dismiss.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Dismiss away, you do you.
|
| I don't regard this as a "strong claim" requiring "extra-
| ordinary proof". Technically it is a claim, I suppose.
| Many statements are. I strongly disagree that it any of
| "speculation" or "Ameriphobia". Those are emotional
| language, strong claims about me that you throw out. I
| won't go into biographical details why those just don't
| fit. And they are, yet again, dismissive.
|
| "All countries are the same" Is quite a claim though. You
| seem defensive.
|
| "require" makes it seem like I'm obligated though.
| Counterpoint: as the wise man said regarding when someone
| disagrees with you online and demands you prove your
| point: "I've known you for ten seconds and enjoyed none
| of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you."
| ruthmarx wrote:
| > Dismiss away, you do you.
|
| With, as I said, good reason. That's important.
|
| > I don't regard this as a "strong claim" requiring
| "extra-ordinary proof".
|
| Not extra-ordinary proof, proportional proof. For a
| strong claim, strong evidence.
|
| Saying the US has more loopholes than other developed
| nations that exploit and bypass the legal system and
| checks and balances in place compared to other developed
| nations is indeed a strong claim.
|
| > Technically it is a claim, I suppose. Many statements
| are.
|
| Many statements are opinions. Many are speculation. Some
| are claims. Some are strong claims, like this one.
|
| > I strongly disagree that it any of "speculation" or
| "Ameriphobia".
|
| Ameriphobia is a possibility, not an accusation. Until
| you are willing to support your claim, it's entirely
| reasonable that I should only take your claims as
| speculation.
|
| > And they are, yet again, dismissive.
|
| Because there is reason to dismiss, because you don't
| want to support your claim. Even though it would have
| been less effort than typing your last reply, and less
| effort than typing your reply to this comment, especially
| since I'm sure you'll respond to each individual point.
|
| > "All countries are the same" Is quite a claim though.
|
| That was never my claim. That's a strawman fallacy and
| nothing else.
|
| > You seem defensive.
|
| Just not a fan of wild claims that lack evidence.
|
| > "require" makes it seem like I'm obligated though.
|
| In the sense of any obligations inherited whenever
| implicitly agreeing to engage in civil debate, it is.
|
| > Counterpoint: as the wise man said regarding when
| someone disagrees with you online and demands you prove
| your point: "I've known you for ten seconds and enjoyed
| none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from
| you."
|
| Supporting a claim isn't homework. You calling it
| homework is you attempting to shift the burden of proof
| onto me, which is dishonest.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| Correct, it's a 'human' thing - nothing peculiar to US.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Civil asset forfeiture isn't different in its principles. It's
| _civil_ meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of
| proof is lower, etc. Essentially, this is an ex parte action
| against the asset forcing the owner to prove ownership in order
| to get legal standing to challenge in the court. It 's a
| terrible system, but it utilizes the same principles found in
| other Civil laws. These lack of protections is why people push
| back on things like red flag laws and why legislatures are
| increasingly looking to use these to bypass things in the
| criminal side (see TX trying to allow actions against abortion
| seekers, or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
| dylan604 wrote:
| > or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
|
| But doesn't the CA law explicitly acknowledge this by saying
| if the TX law is ever knocked back the CA law automatically
| becomes null and void?
| giantg2 wrote:
| I don't know. I heard about the idea of the similar law
| being stated by one of the politicians there. I didn't
| think it was actually passed. I thought the TX law was
| invalidated pretty quickly, likely before CA could even
| pass their own version for guns. It seemed like more of a
| political statement than a real law, which makes sense if
| they have an auto-repeal clause in it.
|
| Either way, my point was that civil laws seem to be
| increasing in favor when the politicians and interest
| groups haven't been able to achieve what they want through
| the criminal side. Abortion and guns tend to showcase this
| most as they are the most contentious issues.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Texas went with vigilante justice to get its desires for
| abortion. Nothing surprises me anymore about how far red
| states will go to get their agendas pushed.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the
| burden of proof is lower, etc.
|
| That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the
| 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or
| civil or any other "type" of law.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Sorry, but civil forfeiture is 'civil' not legal. The US
| Justice system has completely bypassed all kind of US Level
| systems controls/protections simply by reclassifying them as
| 'civil' not 'criminal' because our protections only apply to
| 'criminal' law, such as the huge differences in the standards
| for a finding of guilt between civil and criminal law.
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings,"
| something about the drug enforcement agency.
|
| I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story
| behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of
| cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds,
| never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money
| to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
|
| On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal
| argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right
| against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
| pizza234 wrote:
| It's written in a referenced article
| (https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/):
|
| > On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway
| Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying
| that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who
| pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless
| prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about
| Stephen's life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his
| life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers
| arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car.
| They found a backpack with Stephen's money, just where he said
| it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank
| withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was
| recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life
| savings.
|
| > After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines
| set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a
| case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong.
| So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his
| money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the
| DEA to return Stephen's money, and his story garnered national
| press attention, that the federal government agreed to return
| his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his
| lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
| Over2Chars wrote:
| The part about the receipts I had missed.
|
| Although _volunteering_ information about anything seems
| suspect.
|
| And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball,
| but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal
| money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to
| explain why they had it.
|
| I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as
| part of his "DOGE"?
| YawningAngel wrote:
| It might be naive, but I don't think it's suspicious to be
| forthright with the police
| naasking wrote:
| Not suspicious, but probably dumb.
| pizza234 wrote:
| > Although volunteering information about anything seems
| suspect.
|
| I don't live in the USA, but to my understanding, it's
| common for individuals from minority groups to be taught by
| their families specific behaviors for interacting with
| police, such as how to position their hands. I wouldn't be
| surprised if this also includes notifying the police about
| personal belongings that could potentially raise suspicion.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| As a minority, you are taught where to hold your hands.
| But we taught our sons - "don't talk to the police when
| questioned".
|
| We also taught them in case they did have to call the
| police in case of something like a home break-in,
| describe themselves. We lived in a city that was less
| than 4% Black and was a famous "sundown town" as late as
| the mid 80s
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as
| part of his "DOGE"?
|
| I hope. Bespoke single police agencies only serve the
| purpose of sucking up resources to enforce stuff that a
| broad police agency (like the FBI) would never or could not
| justify allocating so many resources toward.
|
| You get these agencies like the DEA that build up this
| headcount and budget and then go justify it by engaging in
| all sorts of bad crap. The FBI would rarely (I'm not gonna
| say never) waste time going after college kids for making
| "more than personal use" amounts of acid. If they want to
| waste man hours on petty things to justify their budget
| they have a whole laundry list of more legitimate petty
| things to enforce first.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| While you are legally allowed to refuse search of your
| vehicle, in practice people get brutalized for standing up
| for their rights all the time. The exact boundaries of your
| legal rights are also not clear to most people (even many
| lawyers) so you risk refusing an actually legal order and
| ending up in even more trouble.
|
| Plus, a cop can just call for a canine squad and then get
| the canine to signal and then use that as probable cause
| for a search if they really want to fuck your day up in a
| way that is totally legal.
|
| This makes the idea that you should just confidently
| advocate for your 4th amendment rights actually pretty
| unappealing.
| hiatus wrote:
| > Plus, a cop can just call for a canine squad and then
| get the canine to signal and then use that as probable
| cause for a search if they really want to fuck your day
| up in a way that is totally legal.
|
| Can't make you wait around for a canine without probable
| cause. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-
| battles/239513-court-ru...
|
| > While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car
| during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot
| extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.
| treebeard901 wrote:
| The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad
| this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how
| the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the
| situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it
| can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank.
| Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a
| small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say
| someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of
| rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law
| enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as
| was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into
| the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first
| place. At one point they explain a large part of the police
| departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just
| small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone
| involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money
| stolen.
|
| At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for
| having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of
| criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks
| have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the
| deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database
| somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that
| assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial
| equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would
| be using your credit card".
| the-dude wrote:
| > At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation
| for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of
| criminality.
|
| Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true
| in The Netherlands.
| coldtea wrote:
| Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they
| want with their own money...
| MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote:
| While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want
| to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of
| cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people
| to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale
| disruptions to the financial system.
|
| Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're
| knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
| the-dude wrote:
| What is small and what is large is a matter of opinion.
|
| If they are out to get you and can't find anything
| incriminating, cash will do. The press will happily report
| on this too : 'There was a police raid so and so, nothing
| was found but they found a (large) amount of cash'.
|
| Furthermore, our government is planning legislation to make
| cash transactions > EUR 3000 illegal.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > What is small and what is large is a matter of opinion.
|
| There's certainly there's some vagueness in the middle,
| for me a few hundred isn't large, but a grand is, and I
| don't know that everyone would agree, but I think most
| everyone would agree that $5 is small and $10,000 is
| large.
| reaperman wrote:
| $10,000 doesn't seem particularly large. Just a few years
| ago, I bought an old truck for $12,000 in one hundred
| dollar bills.
|
| If you're worried about large drug transactions, a
| kilogram of cocaine would cost around $20,000-40,000 in
| the USA, and significantly more in Europe (actual
| wholesale price for bulk purchase, not inflated police
| figures that price it at $150/gram).
|
| Personally I think one month of apartment rent should not
| be considered a suspiciously large amount of cash, and it
| should be fine to buy a car from a friend using actual
| cash. I really don't see the downside of leaving those
| things legal without a threat of civil asset forfeiture.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| $12,000 is an out of the ordinary large amount of money -
| that's why you can note it as a special instance. It's
| certainly not something you keep on yourself every day,
| right? I'm not arguing that people should be limited in
| what money they carry, I'm saying there is a normal range
| of cash, it's not as nebulous as argued.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| I might not carry that much every day, or ever, but
| somebody somewhere in the country (probably dozens or
| hundreds) will have a legal reason to do so on any given
| day. IMO this is similar to the laws that allow
| prosecutors to charge (and win!) drug offenders for
| "distribution" for just having a large amount of a drug.
| There's a presumption that if you have a brick of weed,
| you're a drug dealer. Well, maybe, but shouldn't that
| have to be proven in court?
| stonogo wrote:
| That person might note it as a special instance, but
| 'normal' varies wildly from person to person, and 4.5% of
| America is unbanked entirely. Setting _any_ limit on the
| amount of money someone is allowed to carry essentially
| criminalizes poverty.
| fn-mote wrote:
| The effect of 25% inflation over the last five years is
| that what used to be definitely acceptable ($8000) is now
| an amount to be reported and questioned ($10000).
| psunavy03 wrote:
| The media will sensationalize anything. Another favorite
| is claiming someone had "hundreds of rounds of
| ammunition" when even someone who just shoots
| recreationally, let alone competitively, would burn
| through that in an afternoon. It's like accusing a golfer
| of going through hundreds of balls at the driving range .
| . . yeah, that's the point of going.
| RajT88 wrote:
| What constitutes a large sum depends a bit based on the
| situation (or what kind of person you are!).
|
| A 2020 study found the average seized was $1300: https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
|
| In some states, the average seized amount is in the
| hundreds, or even less:
| https://thewhyaxis.substack.com/p/cops-still-take-more-
| stuff...
|
| In Chicago, they are taking amounts less than $100:
| https://reason.com/2017/06/13/poor-neighborhoods-hit-
| hardest...
|
| "You are too poor to fairly have $100, so we're taking it"
| seems insane to me.
| soco wrote:
| Are you sure the "any amount" generalization is true? I know
| in Switzerland of money confiscated at border control for
| simple suspicion, but we are talking (tens of) thousands.
| Although there's a certain obligation of declaration those
| people always "forget", that situation stays shitty, but in
| any case it's a very very far cry from "any amount".
| the-dude wrote:
| If it were really 'any' in the philosophical sense, cash
| would be outlawed. So no, it is not 'any', it is anywhere
| between more than a couple of hundred to a couple of
| thousands, depending on what the police or prosecutor feels
| is reasonable.
|
| What is wrong with a (couple of) thousand euros?
|
| > I know in Switzerland of money confiscated at border
| control
|
| You are describing smuggling, I was talking about normal
| domestic use.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _You are describing smuggling_
|
| There's a thin line between smuggling and wanting
| personal money to be somewhere else.
|
| I get why most states want to track cash coming across
| their border, but it's really none of their business if
| they can't prove theres a crime.
|
| The absence of a crime does not constitute a crime.
| soco wrote:
| And now the funny part: even after they failed to prove
| there's a crime, the Swiss police still often refuses to
| release the money.
| nullc wrote:
| > If it were really 'any' in the philosophical sense,
| cash would be outlawed.
|
| The state doesn't have unlimited power, so no. What you
| expect to see where cash is being banned outright is a
| slow erosion of less common uses, larger amounts, and an
| addition of inconveniences and risks in order to drive
| people off it so that an eventual ban is less unpopular
| or is even popular. ("screw those bank distrusting
| weirdos!")
|
| To ban outright risks backlash and failure.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| One Dutch party in the previous government tried to outlaw
| carrying more than EUR2000 in the street. As far as I know,
| that law didn't pass. Plus you can keep as many cash
| reserves at home as you want (but good luck getting any
| back if that gets stolen).
|
| However, there are rules that make cash less useful for
| large payments. Cash payments over EUR10000 (EUR3000
| starting in March) are outright banned without involving
| the government.
|
| There are more practical problems than "I just really want
| to buy a car without giving out my bank account", though:
| more and more Dutch stores have stopped taking cash to
| reduce the risk and losses of robberies. You can still
| carry cash, but spending it may require some research ahead
| of time, and not every business is interested in the
| overhead of going through the money laundering prevention
| system when normal people usually just buy >EUR3000 stuff
| through their bank accounts.
|
| If anything, the Dutch government has been telling people
| to have cash available in case of emergencies after
| "geopolitical tension" (read: the Russian invasion into
| Ukraine). Not that anyone seems to listen, but they
| encourage having cash reserves. They're still working out
| an exact amount to recommend, but a couple hundred euros
| seems to be most likely.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Can we note the absurdity of one part of the government
| banning too much cash, while another part of the
| government notes that some cash is essential?
|
| Also, prepper realism: a week's worth of cash at hand
| goes a long way towards handling the most likely disaster
| scenarios (which are all well short of _Road Warrior_ ).
| soco wrote:
| Let's not omit that a large reserve of cash will be very
| unlikely spent all at once, so we are talking different
| use cases here. You won't buy a car (probably) in a
| disaster scenario, but water and food from here and
| there.
| OJFord wrote:
| Is that absurd? It's not inconsistent.
| danudey wrote:
| 1. Having spare cash around is important to be able to
| acquire necessities in case of a temporary failure of
| electronic banking.
|
| 2. Making a 3000 euro cash transaction in this day and
| age is suspicious and we'd like to know about it if it
| happens to ensure everything is above-board.
|
| I don't see the absurdity. They're not saying don't have
| cash, they're saying don't use cash for large purchases
| but keep some around for necessities. Even if you have
| 10k stashed under your bed in case of ~situation~, you're
| unlikely to be making a 3000 euro purchase in an
| emergency situation.
| tivert wrote:
| > If anything, the Dutch government has been telling
| people to have cash available in case of emergencies
| after "geopolitical tension" (read: the Russian invasion
| into Ukraine). Not that anyone seems to listen, but they
| encourage having cash reserves. They're still working out
| an exact amount to recommend, but a couple hundred euros
| seems to be most likely.
|
| In that scenario, it seems like that would be an
| insufficient amount to really do _anything_ except handle
| very basic needs for a week or two.
| reaperman wrote:
| My assumption is that this is being recommended for a
| situation where Russia might hack the banking system, and
| the Dutch probably expect they'd be able to get the
| banks/ATMs working again within a week.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Which is exactly what's been going on in Ukraine. Russian
| hacking efforts have had negligible effects.
| graemep wrote:
| > If anything, the Dutch government has been telling
| people to have cash available in case of emergencies
| after "geopolitical tension" (read: the Russian invasion
| into Ukraine). Not that anyone seems to listen, but they
| encourage having cash reserves.
|
| There is a very strong case for people keeping cash
| because of its resilience.
|
| People will not do it until something happens to make
| them realise the problems - maybe cyberwar or natural
| disaster bringing electronic payment systems to halt.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| > When most money exists in digital form in a database
| somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that
| assumption of wrong doing.
|
| It's already happening, and it probably just depends on the
| teller you get. I have no idea if it's policy or not, but I've
| been questioned pretty intrusively for cash transactions even
| under the reporting limit of 10k (see: BSA, CTR).
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| The EU literally got rid of the 500 Euro bank note because it
| was primarily used by criminals for evading the law.
| Y_Y wrote:
| They literally did not. 500s are still currency, they just
| stopped printing them.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| You are probably questioned more about cash transactions
| under the reporting limit. Over the reporting limit they file
| a form. Under they have to determine if they need to file a
| form.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| That limit was reduced to $500 and then back up to $2000.
| It's a multifaceted thing, now, that triggers a SAR.
|
| https://www.fincen.gov/fact-sheet-industry-msb-suspicious-
| ac...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation
| for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of
| criminality.
|
| Already true in Brazil where I live.
|
| It's just the financial arm of global warrantless mass
| surveillance. I highly recommend not allowing them to do this
| to you.
|
| Brazilian central bank developed a digital centralized money
| transfer system called pix. You already know where this is
| going, right? At first it was great: instant, zero fees, no
| taxes. Right now the entire nation is angry about the fact our
| IRS equivalent will start using the pix transaction data to
| cross reference and audit citizens. If you move more than ~800
| USD your financial data gets sent to the government
| automatically.
|
| I like to believe that Brazil is some kind of test bed for
| dystopian nonsense like this.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The reserve requirement comment feels out of place. Banks don't
| keep their reserve requirements in physical cash.
| RickS wrote:
| One of the more insidious versions of this is the static
| thresholds for things like "a suspiciously large amount of
| cash", which are not inflation adjusted, causing them to
| effectively shrink over time. A $10K cash travel limit
| established by the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 would be over $80K
| in 2025 dollars. The law is structured so that the net is
| constantly tightening by default.
| loa_in_ wrote:
| Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables
| with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas
| money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the
| valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
| mitch-crn wrote:
| "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a
| society, over the course of time they create for themselves a
| legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies
| it." -- Frederic Bastiat, French economist
| http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
|
| Nice cartoon on the government.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| John Oliver did a section on Civil Forfeiture:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
|
| A lot of folks don't like him (politics, but he can also be a
| rather shrill person).
|
| He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often
| apolitical.
| nullc wrote:
| I thought he was way better pre-covid-- at least showed empathy
| for differing views, acknowledged some tradeoffs, etc. He
| turned very one dimensional during covid and never recovered.
| bn-l wrote:
| > He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often
| apolitical.
|
| His team of researchers and comedians (ex college humor alumns)
| do the research and it comes out of his off-putting mouth and
| face.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Not to worry, they'll turn political again in a few weeks when
| every single negative event in the world will be blamed on the
| president.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to
| make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed
| to directly benefit the police or the government they represent.
|
| Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate,
| or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the
| incentive.
| sowbug wrote:
| Or destroy the cash in public.
| jdubz79 wrote:
| We need a database of any cop, lawyer, prosecutor or judge that
| participates in this type of bullshit. Identify, track, punish!
| Tyrants have home addresses!
| andrewaylett wrote:
| Letting police forces retain _any_ of the proceeds of their
| activities seems like a really bad idea.
| bobbob1921 wrote:
| This guy looks familiar from a video on YouTube of the traffic
| stop and cash seizure. If this in fact is the same guy and case
| from that video, I wonder what would've happened had this not
| been videotaped / posted online as I'm sure 99% of these similar
| scenarios are not. Civil forfeiture in the usa really is
| ridiculous, and I wish it would be radically changed/banned.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| And it only took them how long to do this?
|
| If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing
| should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but
| hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten
| goods.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| It seems especially ironic that this would happen in Nevada,
| where carrying large amounts of cash is much more normal due to
| the gambling industry.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-15 23:01 UTC)