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".
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.
> 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).
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.
Over 10k in a day of cumulative deposits will automatically trigger a CTR (currency transaction report). Amounts over 3k can trigger a SAR (suspicious activity report) but those are typically at teller discretion unless its a very specific circumstance like a customer buying $2500 in traveller cheques but has a typical average balance under some low threshold.
All those reports go to the banks AML (Anti Money Laundering) group who have to follow specific reporting guidlines from big brother. Lots of data is used to determine your risk level, which gets assigned tonyou when you open an account, especially a business account. Depending on the sic codes you choose determines how heavily you are scrutinized by the banks interal risk structure.
I could go on but you get the gist.
Source: too many decades in financial services orgs
I think that’s what was implied. Canada “got rid of” the $1000 bill but it’s still legal tender. Canada also got rid of the penny, but it remains legal tender. Banks will take them if vendors don’t.
By making the Mark convertible to Euro indefinitely, Germany decided that it would be the only Euro-zone country that wasn’t going to participate in the confiscation of what turned out to be billions from their own citizens. It’s called seigniorage and has been a thing since Roman times or even before.
> 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.
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".
One Dutch party in the previous government tried to outlaw carrying more than €2000 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 €10000 (€3000 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 >€3000 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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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!")
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.
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 > € 3000 illegal.
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.
> 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.
$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.
$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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
>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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Is it too much to ask? They should be offloading that to whomever they're getting the cargo from and whomever they're getting their cargo from should have a valid import/export license which means they're willing to go through the steps to ship cargo legally.
> 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
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."
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.
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.
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.
That bill of rights does not exclusively deal with criminal law. At least the first and fifth amendments deal partially with civil law. The seventh amendment exclusively relates to civil law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
> 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.
In Brazil we have a problem with the Judiciary too, most of it is completely detached from reality, due to these exact same reasons.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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".
> 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?
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.
They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
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
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.
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).
The Napoleonic code is a civil code in contrast to a common-law system, not civil law in contrast to criminal law. These are two different meanings of the term "civil", and the Napoleonic code absolutely does deal with criminal offenses.
What? No. The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) is for civil law in contrast to criminal law. The penal code promulgated under Napoleon is called... the Penal Code, and is not the one that was adopted across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
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.
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).
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
If you are an innocent person carrying the suspected proceeds of crime, and can prove it's not from a crime, you should not be impacted.
Recourse is built into the civil forfeiture process, afaict. This article is, as I read it, a case of a man using the channels of recourse successfully.
Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
the problem is that this shifts the burden of proof of innocence on you, instead of the burden of proof of guilt on the authorities. They can say "we have reason to believe you committed a crime to obtain this" and there's not much you can do except to prove them wrong. That goes against "unless you can prove I have a committed a crime, I have committed no crime". That's what I take issue with.
> Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
You're probably right. There is recourse and procedures, so not quite Wild West level lawlessness. But the system is very much rigged against you if for some reason the police believe (rightly or wrongly) that the assets were obtained illegally or used in illegal activity. And it very much facilitates police corruption since their burden of proof is so low -- who is to say that the police is wrong?
1) yes the burden of proof is shifted, but if the recourse is relatively simple administrative appeal (showing a source of income, a history of savings, a chain of withdrawals, to explain why you have $300,000 in small bills in your trunk) vs hiring a defender and a trial, that's seems like a reasonable trade off.
The history of civil forfeiture in maritime law suggests it arose when you captured a pirate of smuggling vessel. They are loaded with stolen or illegal merchandise. The owner of the vessel is in France. You seize it and send a letter to him saying "hey, if this is yours, come get it and tell us why you have it legally. Otherwise it's ours."
2. Lots of things facilitate corruption. This might be one of them, but even if we eliminated it, corruption isn't likely to go away (it is not the unique driver of corruption). Moreover, it may not be even a particularly significant driver of corruption in general (there may be specific cases where it is) - so removing it wouldn't impact all the forces that generate corruption. So removing it would have little or no impact.
That said, if the perception is that it is a corrupting force, it would be useful to make changes to make it seem less so: have all proceeds go to FEMA, for example, instead of back to the departments. Or specify how the recovered moneys can be spent - on buildings but not salaries - like jail improvements- so specific people cannot uniquely benefit.
And if corruption is the problem generally, addressing it directly is likely to be more effective than eliminating civil forfeiture and letting corruption go unchecked otherwise.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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."
> 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.
If anyone needs to get a grip it's you. There's no issue here. I'm dismissive of your speculation and that's reasonable since there's nothing to support it.
> The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence.
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
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.
> 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.
“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.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
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
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.
> 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.
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"?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
At least on TV, while the first officer is "running their plates" a second k9 unit rolls up and the dog jumps around and pops the bad guy with his 50kg of contraband.
Or at least that was the way it was shown on this one episode of whatever show I saw it on.
>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.
Well, with all due respect to the heroic efforts of the vast majority of the DEA, if we judge them by their total success or failure, I'd have to go with "failure" as far as the US is concerned.
Being a massive drug market with people dying from drugs on a daily basis is not exactly a shining indicator of success.
That said, for the DEA to succeed we'd need a massive amount of coordination - which is to say real leadership on this issue, I think which may be beyond the DEA by itself.
> 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.
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
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.
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."
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
"murder in any way" covers a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a lot of power. But isn't that a good thing because it discourages people from murdering?
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?
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>"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.
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
Do you mean nobody wants to hear it directed at them? That's true in general, even in situations where it really needs to be said. So that's not a very compelling reason to not say it.
If you mean nobody wants to hear those words ever, from anyone to anyone, then that's not true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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™ 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™” 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™” 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
> 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).
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...
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.
Over 10k in a day of cumulative deposits will automatically trigger a CTR (currency transaction report). Amounts over 3k can trigger a SAR (suspicious activity report) but those are typically at teller discretion unless its a very specific circumstance like a customer buying $2500 in traveller cheques but has a typical average balance under some low threshold.
All those reports go to the banks AML (Anti Money Laundering) group who have to follow specific reporting guidlines from big brother. Lots of data is used to determine your risk level, which gets assigned tonyou when you open an account, especially a business account. Depending on the sic codes you choose determines how heavily you are scrutinized by the banks interal risk structure.
I could go on but you get the gist.
Source: too many decades in financial services orgs
The EU literally got rid of the 500 Euro bank note because it was primarily used by criminals for evading the law.
They literally did not. 500s are still currency, they just stopped printing them.
I think that’s what was implied. Canada “got rid of” the $1000 bill but it’s still legal tender. Canada also got rid of the penny, but it remains legal tender. Banks will take them if vendors don’t.
German Marks can also still be swapped for legal tender. That doesn't mean it is possible to use them like the Euro.
By making the Mark convertible to Euro indefinitely, Germany decided that it would be the only Euro-zone country that wasn’t going to participate in the confiscation of what turned out to be billions from their own citizens. It’s called seigniorage and has been a thing since Roman times or even before.
So not like the 500 euro note either, which is legal tender already.
> 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.
They already did it with credit card, I'm actually surprised that they weren't already doing that, not sure if I understand the issue
> 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.
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".
One Dutch party in the previous government tried to outlaw carrying more than €2000 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 €10000 (€3000 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 >€3000 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.
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).
Is that absurd? It's not inconsistent.
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.
Electronic banking also has preferences which cards it handles.
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.
> 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.
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.
Which is exactly what’s been going on in Ukraine. Russian hacking efforts have had negligible effects.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 > € 3000 illegal.
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.
> 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.
$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.
$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.
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.
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?
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).
Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money...
The reserve requirement comment feels out of place. Banks don’t keep their reserve requirements in physical cash.
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.
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!
>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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Is it too much to ask? They should be offloading that to whomever they're getting the cargo from and whomever they're getting their cargo from should have a valid import/export license which means they're willing to go through the steps to ship cargo legally.
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.
> 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
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."
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.
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.
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.
That bill of rights does not exclusively deal with criminal law. At least the first and fifth amendments deal partially with civil law. The seventh amendment exclusively relates to civil law.
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.
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.
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.
> The US had a solid first draft, it's time to update it.
That's what the amendment system is for.
by which metrics? which other countries?
The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a lot of rights
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
> 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.
In Brazil we have a problem with the Judiciary too, most of it is completely detached from reality, due to these exact same reasons.
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.
Sorry bro, qualified immunity was invented by the courts to prevent that.
> 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.
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.
Cars are not money, and are often confiscated/impounded/sold for Civil Forfeiture.
So bitcoins are safe, i assume. And, as a bonus, a dog can't smell it:)
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).
Very interesting. So I can walk safetly in the street with a million dollar necklace, but not with $1000 in cash?
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.
> 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?"
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.
> 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.
That is sophistry.
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...
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.
"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"
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".
>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.
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.
That's not presuming guilt. And I'm pretty sure the other commenter wasn't referring to the UK as some countries.
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.
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.
> 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...
Er, what? This seems quite better than the UK where claiming the right can still cause it to be used against you...
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.
> 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?
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.
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
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.
> 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.
The bit about where money from the book would go was hilarious and also a great example of stereotypical attorney humor.
> 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.
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.
>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.
> 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".
> 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?
The US right to remain silent is different from the presumption of innocence.
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.
They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
> 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
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.
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).
The Napoleonic code is a civil code in contrast to a common-law system, not civil law in contrast to criminal law. These are two different meanings of the term "civil", and the Napoleonic code absolutely does deal with criminal offenses.
What? No. The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) is for civil law in contrast to criminal law. The penal code promulgated under Napoleon is called... the Penal Code, and is not the one that was adopted across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
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.
You're using the wrong meaning of "civil law" here. The Napoleonic Code absolutely did include criminal law.
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).
>> 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.
> 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?
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.
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.
It's not really vigilante justice if it's through the courts.
Okay, so they crowd sourced it out, but the concept of letting the citizens police rather than officials is just one step from vigilante
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
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.
> 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.
The history of civil forfeiture is maritime law, which has special conditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
If you are an innocent person carrying the suspected proceeds of crime, and can prove it's not from a crime, you should not be impacted.
Recourse is built into the civil forfeiture process, afaict. This article is, as I read it, a case of a man using the channels of recourse successfully.
Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
> can prove it's not from a crime
the problem is that this shifts the burden of proof of innocence on you, instead of the burden of proof of guilt on the authorities. They can say "we have reason to believe you committed a crime to obtain this" and there's not much you can do except to prove them wrong. That goes against "unless you can prove I have a committed a crime, I have committed no crime". That's what I take issue with.
> Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
You're probably right. There is recourse and procedures, so not quite Wild West level lawlessness. But the system is very much rigged against you if for some reason the police believe (rightly or wrongly) that the assets were obtained illegally or used in illegal activity. And it very much facilitates police corruption since their burden of proof is so low -- who is to say that the police is wrong?
1) yes the burden of proof is shifted, but if the recourse is relatively simple administrative appeal (showing a source of income, a history of savings, a chain of withdrawals, to explain why you have $300,000 in small bills in your trunk) vs hiring a defender and a trial, that's seems like a reasonable trade off.
The history of civil forfeiture in maritime law suggests it arose when you captured a pirate of smuggling vessel. They are loaded with stolen or illegal merchandise. The owner of the vessel is in France. You seize it and send a letter to him saying "hey, if this is yours, come get it and tell us why you have it legally. Otherwise it's ours."
2. Lots of things facilitate corruption. This might be one of them, but even if we eliminated it, corruption isn't likely to go away (it is not the unique driver of corruption). Moreover, it may not be even a particularly significant driver of corruption in general (there may be specific cases where it is) - so removing it wouldn't impact all the forces that generate corruption. So removing it would have little or no impact.
That said, if the perception is that it is a corrupting force, it would be useful to make changes to make it seem less so: have all proceeds go to FEMA, for example, instead of back to the departments. Or specify how the recovered moneys can be spent - on buildings but not salaries - like jail improvements- so specific people cannot uniquely benefit.
And if corruption is the problem generally, addressing it directly is likely to be more effective than eliminating civil forfeiture and letting corruption go unchecked otherwise.
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?
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)
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.
That's not a US thing, that's an every country everywhere thing.
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.
Can you support your argument with some examples?
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.
> 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.
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."
> 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.
12 seconds now, and not getting any more enjoyable.
It's an observation, not a PhD thesis requiring academic defence.
I strongly advice you to get a grip on yourself.
If any of this is unclear, you can re-read above comments.
If anyone needs to get a grip it's you. There's no issue here. I'm dismissive of your speculation and that's reasonable since there's nothing to support it.
Nothing more to say.
Correct, it's a 'human' thing - nothing peculiar to US.
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".
> The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence.
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
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.
> 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.
>It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power.
I'll add taxes to the list.
“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.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
>http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
Nice cartoon on the government.
Letting police forces retain any of the proceeds of their activities seems like a really bad idea.
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
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.
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.
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"?
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.
> 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.
Sounds good, but doesn't work. They remanded back to the 8th Circuit, which found that Rodriguez's stop and canine search was legal.
At least on TV, while the first officer is "running their plates" a second k9 unit rolls up and the dog jumps around and pops the bad guy with his 50kg of contraband.
Or at least that was the way it was shown on this one episode of whatever show I saw it on.
>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.
Well, with all due respect to the heroic efforts of the vast majority of the DEA, if we judge them by their total success or failure, I'd have to go with "failure" as far as the US is concerned.
Being a massive drug market with people dying from drugs on a daily basis is not exactly a shining indicator of success.
That said, for the DEA to succeed we'd need a massive amount of coordination - which is to say real leadership on this issue, I think which may be beyond the DEA by itself.
> 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.
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
It might be naive, but I don't think it's suspicious to be forthright with the police
Not suspicious, but probably dumb.
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.
> 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.
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."
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Are you concerned that police will bribe prosecutors to not prosecute, using forfeited money?
> 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.
"murder in any way" covers a lot of ground, which gives whoever gets that discretion a lot of power. But isn't that a good thing because it discourages people from murdering?
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?
> 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.
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.
>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.
>That would make legitimate civil asset forfeiture impossible to execute.
There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
> 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.
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?
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
> > 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?
The context is "what to do with the $200000 we just found", not investigating crimes in general.
> 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
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.
Use criminal asset forfeiture, which requires a conviction. Shouldn't be too hard to secure in those circumstances.
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.
>"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
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".
Or maybe law enforcement should only be empowered to carry out criminal asset forfeiture.
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.
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.
Or destroy the cash in public.
The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?
> CMV?
Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
Reddit lingo. Change My View.
I have never seen anyone abbreviate it like that before. Let's not do that.
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.
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.
> 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.
> Nobody wants to hear “let’s not do that”
Do you mean nobody wants to hear it directed at them? That's true in general, even in situations where it really needs to be said. So that's not a very compelling reason to not say it.
If you mean nobody wants to hear those words ever, from anyone to anyone, then that's not true.
In general, but don’t lose the emphasis: especially over such a mundane abbreviation.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
why would I do that? :p
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.
> If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police.
But civil asset forfeiture isn't incentivizing good policing.
Agree, that's an example of a badly designed incentive.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah, perhaps I should have qualified it with “no-one who knows what they’re doing”.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
First party who would propose it would lose support for cops/justice system workers.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But most abandoned property doesn't go through that process, does it?
Garbage found at the side of the street, no. A bag of heroin found in an abandoned building, certainly.
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.
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™ 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™” 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™” 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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!
USA is truly a fucked up country
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.
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?
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.