According to MSN [1], the DEA decided last week to give him his money back.
They kept the money for 200 days, in violation of the Federal statute requiring the DEA to file a case within 90 days. It's unclear what, if any, repercussions there will be for the DEA for violating the law. Astoundingly, the Nevada Highway Patrol did not violate the law. That only means, of course, it's a terrible law and needs to be eliminated. Hopefully there will be some consequences for police that abuse this bad law, but that will have to come from local voters.
Note that $87k in 100's is a stack about 4" thick. It sickens me to hear people blaming the victim for the non-crime of holding his own cash, with bank receipts, and for the non-crime of simply telling the officer the truth and being totally cooperative. The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.
> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.
Just a few days ago, I made the mistake of telling the police how much cash I had with me after they stopped the taxi I was sitting in (a few hundred euros). This happened in the middle of the night in a foreign country (France), so I didn't dare to disobey their orders. They took the cash and drove away. It turned out they were not real officers, but only dressed up as such for the purpose of robbing gullible tourists...
The same situation in many developing countries around the world. The local taxi cartels have been using lobbying and outright violence to keep ride-sharing services away / banned.
According to the article, the officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency in the car. There's no way to weasel out of answering that kind of direct question if you've already been cooperative with other questions. It's possible, though uncertain, that he might have kept his money by categorically refusing to talk from the start of the stop.
With state cops you are allowed to lie under many circumstances (exceptions: identification, under oath, on reports and forms).
He could have just straight up lied, or interpreted the question in a way favorable to him (I thought you meant millions, not less than $100k).
He cooperated at all points and was doing nothing wrong. The logical conclusion is that being truthful and cooperative is not going to keep you out of trouble.
In the US, that doesn't mean anything legally speaking. They might know then that this means you have a lot of cash on you, but that's not probably cause for a search. They still have to get permission or a warrant to search.
I don’t know about probable cause for a search, but legally speaking, clamming up to a specific question, as opposed to explicitly invoking the 5th amendment right, currently means something in trial, as ruled in Salinas v. Texas.
Second, in the US at least the government does recognize a limited right to privacy in the form of the 4th amendment which spies to States as well. An officer cannot search you, your car or your home without a warrant from a judge or a tangible reason to believe you are committing a crime.
That's why the statement at the top of this thread is
> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police
Suddenly clamming up is a problem, doing so less suddenly is not (I'm elsewhere in this thread roughly advocating for clamming up about anything not directly related to the traffic stop)
The correct way to handle this during a routine stop is to inform the officer that you do not answer questions. In the US, you are not required to answer any questions.
Also, the police have a limited time to conduct the stop. Once they give you back your license, you can immediately leave regardless of what the officer requests that you do. The stop is over at that point, and they cannot legally detain you any longer.
> officer directly asked him if he had a large amount of US currency
That reminds me of something I think I read. Is there are companies that specialize in identifying motorists that are carrying large amounts of cash. They make money by selling that info to the police.
There was no probable cause to search the car, so possibly. It is possible that the police would have used their drug dog to manufacture probable cause anyway.
I suspect there are some missing details. Why was the original stopping officer following him for so long looking for an excuse to pull him over?
Cops have lots of practice with the rights words to say about the person's driving, behavior, appearance, and so on. Or the right things to see. Like a ziploc bag, even if there's sandwich crumbs in it. Or ashes, "residue" (i.e. brown spots on anything), etc. Or constricted pupils, even though it's sunny outside and therefore expected.
My understanding of US law (which could be wrong) is that they need probable cause everywhere in the US if it's going to extend the duration of the stop.
You have to explicitly ask to leave, and they'll ask you to get out of the car anyway as soon as you say you don't consent to a search. Depending on how long it takes the dogs to arrive you could argue about it in court, but good luck.
It doesn't really matter if you talk or don't talk. If they don't like you, they will find a reason to arrest you and hold you. If you do not put yourself in the stress position required to cuff you, they will charge you with "Resisting arrest without violence." If you are out of town, you won't be able to make bail, and you'll wait in jail for a few weeks before your first hearing.
The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" and "you won't be punished before being found guilty" is long, long gone in the USA.
Not talking to the police will not protect you - what will protect you is not being there when the police arrive. Don't answer the door if the police knock. If anyone has called the police for any reason, including those not involving you, leave immediately.
If you have to interact with the police, behave in a respectful-to-the-point-of-obsequious; be warm, friendly and cooperative. Maybe they'll ignore you. But if you stubbornly insist on your rights, and refuse to talk, they will see that as disrespect and aggression and they will hurt you.
Upvoted, but it's got little to do with race. What you describe happens to everyone, regardless of gender or race. You're more likely to get this treatment if you're black, but it's probably like a 30% margin.
Giving civil asset forfeiture hasn't actually been tried in enough courts to establish enough constitutional case law what you say is an uneducated inaccuracy at best.
Also the Constitution United States isn't a law or statue. Laws can violate the Constitution because the constitution sets out limits for laws it's not a law in of itself.
I'm pretty sure you already knew the first part... but given Hacker News doesn't like illogical claims without evidence I figure I'd make sure you knew why you were getting downvoted.
You’re not wrong about Civil Forfeiture not being given enough time in court, but in regards to your commentary about the Constitution serving as law, well the Constitution makes this part clear:
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Now whilst the Constitution was written to be understood by a learned 18th Century gentleman, or the average Joe of the time, not just the lawyers, the problematic part comes from the fact that it is law and laws require enforcement and penalties for its violation. Each branch of the Federal Government is bound by oath to uphold it (in the legislative process, prior to the Executive signing off on it and issuing new rules, as well as when it is in dispute before the courts). Clearly that does not evenly occur.
The Veteran never learned: Don't talk to the cops. "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Is all he needs to say.
"So when the officer asked him about carrying cash, Stephen said “yes.” When the officer asked to search his car, he said “yes.” And when the officer asked about the source of the cash, Stephen showed him over two years’ worth of bank receipts. Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked."
Unless the cop invents a new pretext to harass him. Maybe he thinks he saw drug paraphernalia in the car. Maybe he thinks Stephen was resisting. Maybe he puts his knee on Stephen's neck and holds it there for 7, 8, 9 minutes.
I winced when I read "Stephen did everything he was told" because that led to the police stealing his money. But what else can he do? The cop has the power to kill him and very likely get away with it. And it happens with enough frequency to be a real threat.
The cops can decide to do anything with us, yes this is a sad reality of the USA. This doesn't mean we should invite them freely to search our possessions looking for ways to get kickbacks and meet their monthly quotas. Don't give the cops any information, don't give them opportunities to flex their institutional incentives. Just be a calm, boring, silent citizen.
Very weird to me that so many people think asserting your rights is some magic incantation that will get you out of any police encounter scot-free. We're commenting on a story in which cops literally stole a hapless man’s money. Is that not a tip-off that they’ll happily break the law when it suits them?
When you start asserting your rights and recording some of the more corrupt cops move on to legally stealing from folks that cooperate. There's really no reason to make the corruption easier to get away with.
I think if he hadn't told the cops he was carrying large amounts of money, and hadn't consented to a search, they probably wouldn't have gotten the money.
personally I'd have been polite but firm and said "sorry officer, I'm uncomfortable answering questions."
When I worked for the US Postal Service they gave me a card in case I was ever stopped and asked to be searched, the gist:
I do no consent to a search but will cooperate if required
or something to that effect -- I'd quote it directly but the person who stole my wallet at gunpoint now gets to use it during their (presumably frequently) encounters with law enforcement.
It's just naivete. The man is a military Veteran, he believes in the system, maybe he's a Blue Lives Matter supporter. Does he know that highway robbery via cop occurs all the time? Does he know not to trust cops who get massive kickbacks? Does he know he's not obligated to answer their questions and submit to their searches without cause?
To me, this all says: naivete, a lack of learning. If the cops want to escalate it and infringe on his rights, he can then lawyer up and fight it.
You're right it's stupid this guy clearly deserved to have his money stolen illegally by the government. it's doubly his fault because he allowed the police officer to follow him for long enough that he violated one of the uncountable number of traffic laws. it's Triply his fault because he was trying to be kind and courteous and respectful and cooperative with the officer. what other ways can we blame the guy who had his money stolen for getting his money stolen?
I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that if "don't tell the police anything" is good advice, "don't carry large amounts of cash" is also good advice.
In a just world, neither talking to the police nor carrying cash would result in your money getting stolen.
I don't actually agree that carrying a large amount of money is inherently stupid. It's riskier than not carrying cash, but doing something risky is not the same thing as doing something stupid.
That said even if it was stupid and it was an obvious mistake. Why mention he made a mistake at all? If not to point out that he shares some of the blame because of that mistake?
It might be good advice, but only if it carries an alternative. Pointing out a risk isn't advice, it's a warning. "don't carry large amounts of cash because it might get stolen" vs "electronic transfers between two bank accounts lowers the risk your money will be stolen".
But I assume we both agree but that's not really a helpful piece of advice in this case.
While you agree it is not a crime, the reality of enforcement measures like this means it de facto is considered one in the gestalt of law enforcement. It should not ever be construed as suspicious to carry around large quantities of cash. It is not acceptable to see someone with over 2000 dollars in cash, and assume they are up to something.
People are losing sight of the fact that financial privacy was the default for much of history, and the new phenomena of financial surveillance since the 2000's is absolutely a governmental power play, utilizing the financial system as a tool for soft power projection in that the hand that defines the set of transactions that can be conveniently done wields an immense amount of power and influence in people's day to day lives.
This is a shining example of how the United States has abandoned any semblance of being a fundamentally high trust society anymore.
We should not blame him as he did nothing wrong and was victimised without reason.
On the other hand, it's relevant to remind everyone that replying to questions from the law enforcement can get you in trouble although you did nothing wrong. (I don't think anyone is blaming him for answering as that's the normal thing to do.)
On the other hand, it's relevant to remind everyone that not replying to questions from the law enforcement can get you in trouble although you did nothing wrong.
I've supported IJ for years and watched them fight these civil forfeiture cases onesey-twosey, but I really don't understand why they haven't gotten to SCOTUS and why something so blatantly against the constitution is allowed to stand (among many things, I know, but...)
there was a scotus case lately about this. pretty sure the police were covered under qualified immunity. my google fu is weak but it was in the past year.
cops (allegedly) stole $225000 but QI had them covered in the 9th circuit. scotus declined to pick up the case. for some background, the courts have declined to do anything about QI. they say it's legislator's job to fix it. odds are slim anything will happen.
it's funny, there is no prior legal framework for this and the judiciary isn't supposed to magic things out of their dignified assholes, but there it is. legislation really needs to lay down the law here, if anywhere. a no-knock warrant on one of our congress-critters ending in execution-by-cop might fix it.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, since I'm not that well educated about this. Why can't they sue the police department or some similar body instead of the individuals? My understanding is that QI protects the individuals, but not the government itself from being sued; however, I don't see any discussion of that route when this defense is brought up.
As a non-US person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline.
What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?
You already answered your own question :) The press release is from the group filing the lawsuit on behalf of Stephen, and they of course want to portray their client in the most beneficial way possible. Replacing “citizen” with “veteran” in the headline is a great way to play on that veneration.
For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise.
It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question.
In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
> It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.)
I disagree. I think it’s plain as day that civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced is unconstitutional. The only thing unclear is whether the Supreme Court will recognize it as such
> you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional
There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed.
The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
"holding property while disputes around it are adjudicated" is extremely different from "siezing your property without even charging you with a crime and then forcing you to go to court to prove your innocence"
And the Veterans Administration puts the "pretend" in "care."
Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
On another level, even though all citizens have the same rights, it's nonetheless a bit ironic for police to abuse those who've actively put their lives on the line to defend them.
>Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' veteran suicide claim
As a non-UK person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline.
What would be different about "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' person suicide claim" or "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' citizen suicide claim" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights? Since you're in London, perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.
You are being silly and pointless. Is it not the role of the armed forces minster to comment on veterans affairs? Are these comparable - Is asset seizure a particular problem among veterans, as suicide definitely is? If not, what are you trying to say?
It's relevant because you pretend you're shocked at the use of the word veteran in headlines when the country you're in does the very same thing. This shtick of "non-US" people is quite tiring.
1) this is whataboutism. One can ask about one thing when another thing exists, it's not a valid rebuke to say "what about that?". I have given no opinion on that BBC story either way, as it's not relevant. I'm not the country that I'm in, for starters. I would gladly criticise its politics when it's on topic and in good faith. Here it is neither.
2) "shocked" is your spin, and an inaccurate one. I specifically said "curious".
3) as you are repeatedly refusing to address, these are not actually comparable - who in the US case is comparable for the armed forces minister talking about the veteran? Who in the US case has the remit to talk about veterans, specifically?
Tangentially related: In Afghanistan, the ministry similar to the US' Veterans Affairs is actually called "Ministry of Martyrs and Disabled Affairs", for real:
I wouldn't expect it to change hands. It's still "same hands" just people giving orders are different. Like did .gov tld in general change hands when regime changed to next president?
There are career government employees that are apolitical and carrying out orders from political appointees at the top, which are mostly replaced with each incoming administration.
From what I can tell previous administration was trying to sabotage civilized transfer in every possible way… and the fallout is on display, including AF withdrawal.
However, is/was there such setup in AF government? For all I know, everyone just packed and went home/abroad…
I bet equitable sharing seemed like a really smart idea at the time. A great/cheap way for the government to outbid drug dealers for the loyalty of corrupt (or corruptable) police officers.
This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Goes to show how hard it is to create good law.
IIRC, in years past Texas has gotten rid of embarrassing speed-traps run by local police by requiring those local departments to turn all of their fines over to the state.
Governments are the source of the biggest atrocities and injustices in history, yet most Americans want to give the government more power. That won't end well.
Usually, if you don't give the government some power, that power is just taken by the strongest or least scrupulous. If you want to reduce the government's power to tell industry what they can and can't do, you just increase industry's power to control your life or pollute your environment. If that other party gets powerful enough through this method, then they eventually earn the title of "the government" -- so of course governments are the sources of atrocities! The word just means "whoever has the most power". Yes. Atrocities are committed by the powerful against the weak. Of course!
The trick is to stop treating "the government" as some monolithic "other", and work to make the government part of us; made out of the same cloth as everyone else. If you don't like what the government is doing, then get more active in government. Any barriers to everyday citizens becoming active in government should be torn down as much as possible. Then giving the government power is the same as giving everyone power.
This is what libertarians and anarchists never seem to understand (or intentionally ignore). There's no such thing as "limited government" if you think of "the government" as a collection of entities that have power over your life. If you're lucky, you can have some influence on the makeup of those entities: mega-corporations, billionaires, tribal warlords, 70-year-old white supremacists, crime bosses, religious chosen-ones, feudal lords, or us. Let's work hard to skew it toward being us as much as we can, and stop pretending that if we take power out of the hands of one entity that we call "the government", then that power just goes away and nobody else exercises it.
The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is an example of "limited government." It constrains what the government can do and it can't be overridden by a simple majority because it's part of the constitution.
The existence of that constraint on government power does not imply a power vacuum. If the government can't take your property without due process, that doesn't imply that a corporation can, because the restriction on government takings doesn't prevent the government from passing and enforcing laws against property theft by others. They're two separate things.
We could, and should, make civil asset forfeiture unconstitutional. Arguably it already is and the right case just hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet. That's an example of a constraint on government power and it's a good thing.
I know we're not supposed to mention downvotes here but I really am genuinely interested in how someone could disagree with this argument. I genuinely want to hear what you have to say, downvoter. Please tell me which part of this you disagree with.
Governments are the source of the biggest [substitute many things here]. They're going to be powerful no matter what. It's silly to say in a blanket statement that "more power" is going to end poorly. Many groups with competing interest will appeal to the government. That the government power supports one interest is not inherently bad. Aside from this supporting one interest doesn't require the zero-sum exclusion of a competing interest.
Every part of the law and order wing of conservativism is a conflict vs its libertarian wing. The only reason they're even in the same party is that they both agree on economic freedom and the US first past the post voting creates a two party system.
> Governments are the source of the biggest atrocities and injustices in history
And you have the data to back that up or is it just simple libertarian zealotry?
There are so many other forms of power abuse: economic power abuse from income inequalities (e.g: corporations bribing politicians with campaign contributions), intimidation by violence (e.g: criminals, abusive domestic partners), cults and other ideologically closed communities (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses, fundamentalist/orthodox religions), frauds and misleading propaganda (e.g. Purdue labs sparking opioid epidemics with Oxycontin), ...
But for libertarians' paranoia is just government, government, government,...
Transatlantic slave trade (was done mostly by non-government actors), the Dutch East Indian Company colonization of Indonesia, drugs traffic in the 20th century, the cumulative effects of poisoning from tetraethyl lead,...
And btw, I also mentioned the ongoing plague of opioids addiction sparked by Purdue pharma. Didn't you read it?
> Transatlantic slave trade (was done mostly by non-government actors)
The laws upholding slavery were government action, without which there would have been no slave trade because without government support to hunt them down the slaves would all just run away.
> the Dutch East Indian Company colonization of Indonesia
The Dutch East Indian Company was essentially a government. You can't "colonize" anything and not be a government.
> drugs traffic in the 20th century
The result of government prohibition creating a black market.
> the cumulative effects of poisoning from tetraethyl lead
> the ongoing plague of opioids addiction sparked by Purdue pharma
These things are certainly bad, but Stalin killed more than 20 million people. If you were to nuke five cities the size of Los Angeles it wouldn't be that many people. These things aren't even the same order of magnitude.
The problem with that is that you can't pin it on any single entity and many of the guilty parties are governments, e.g. Saudi Arabia, any state-owned oil company, US government subsidies for oil companies, zoning regulations that induce people to drive cars because it's illegal to build enough housing near the jobs etc.
My comment was meant to give an example of how governments can protect more local regions (which is what is being discussed), though after reading it again I can see how someone could misinterpret what I was trying to say. On that note,
Nothing about the parent comment made me think they wanted to abolish the federal government. What I took it is as we need fewer laws, fewer agencies, and much better oversight and accountability of those agencies.
If anything the Feds should be the reasonable ones since they (in theory) derive their powers from the consensus of the entire nation, whereas state governments are more likely to implement reactionary and anti-human policies, especially if located in a region where those supportive of such policies tend to congregate.
US Federal foreign policy IS fucked however, and I can see how ‘the Great Satan’ arose as an epithet.
If a local jurisdiction implements an anti-human policy, humans have the ability to "vote with their feet" and leave that jurisdiction. It is harder to migrate on an international level.
As a migrant I get it and have done it, but there are humans who cannot do it even locally.
Take some single mother in a backwards part of a backwards state making near enough the absolute minimum wage. If her rights are curtailed even further, it’s not like she can just up and move.
You need:
- the means to move
- a network (or the skills to build one) at your destination
- the general knowledge to know where is good to go to
- the street smarts to not get exploited when you arrive
Though at the same time there are many who don’t dream and just get stuck in the drudgery and lose the will the fight despite having a good shot. Demoralized.
In the article, the events occurred in the state of Nevada while the individual was a resident of the state of Texas. No Nevada residents were harmed in the creation of this article.
Migrating comes with its own dangers, risks, and unknowns. If those dangers, risks, and unknowns are deemed too high by an individual, they might choose to stay, but that doesn't mean their rights are not being violated.
This is crazy. The local cops filed to keep the money under a DEA program. There is no scenario where the cops were honest with the DEA in order to get the money seized. I'm pretty sure if you put this on the form, the DEA will not move forward with the process:
"Man was transporting life savings to his new home. Had 10 years of receipts proving ownership of the money in his possession."
People keep blaming the police (rightfully so, to a degree) but it’s the _pathetic, coward_ DAs that refuse to prosecute the police. If they lied or manufactured evidence, they must be held accountable.
If they’re not attempting to prosecute potential crimes, they should be disbarred. If cops are lying or omitting evidence, they should be fired and charged themselves with obstruction.
The current route is eroding our faith in the system which is showing it’s result already.
Many people are anti-vax because of their distrust. But there’s MANY examples.
The civil asset forfieture problem won't be solved until someone goes postal with such enthusiasm that it puts the judiciary and the legislature on notice that people are sick of them not solving the problem and are solving the problem themselves. Look at history. The government pretty much never solves problems that are a cash cow from them unless there is a high likelihood that further ignoring the problem will cause bloodshed.
An estimated $68.8 billion over 20 years approximately, between state and federal authorities. The Institute for Justice has published a couple of their Policing for Profit profiles (that attempts to keep track of and update on civil asset forfeiture figures and progress/regression), with the most recent in 2020.
California is averaging $25m per year the past 17 years; Illinois is averaging $33m per year; Texas is averaging $18m per year; Florida is averaging $49m per year. Some of the best states are Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut and Missouri.
Here's an infographic by the Institute for Justice for 2018, sizing the states by their civil asset forfeiture thefts (note, the color of the box doesn't coordinate to the scale of theft, that coordinates to state law grades):
It's too bad these scumbags aren't targeting Michael Dell ($50b), Jim Walton ($65b) or MacKenzie Scott ($61b) with civil asset forfeiture. Sorry MacKenzie, that Amazon stock no longer belongs to you, it has been 'impounded' by the Washington State Police. It's being held as, uhm, evidence that you may have had a role in the operation of a massive counterfeit goods ring. Congress or the Supreme Court might finally get around to stopping the practice (or maybe they'd just place a ceiling on how much you can steal from one person).
If a person committed a crime and you can prove it, charge them with the crime then take whatever assets you can prove were gained from criminal activity. There is no merit in civil asset forfeiture whatsoever, regardless if it is done to criminals or everyone else.
So what are the odds that it happens to a given American or tourist?
Ideally we could accept that this (or any other given topic) is bad without feeling the need to exaggerate its significance to ourselves. This is what I miss the most about the pre-Twitter days.
if you are tourist you might as well paint a bullseye on your car. How a tourist is going to fight in a foreign country against police of that country?
This is pretty easily testable. If tourists have “a bullseye” on them, then surely we would expect a significant share of tourists have experienced CF—say 25%. So where is the evidence that a quarter of tourists to the US have said experience?
it is absolutely not an aberration, it is the status quo, it happens to thousands of people a year, it's happened on camera during many episodes of C.O.P.S. (an old popular TV show where camera crews follow police officers around doing their police job), and it mostly happens to non white people (of course) but it also happens to white male citizens, too — some of whom happen to be software engineers going to buy a used car off craigslist or some shit, who have posted to this very website (can't find the link now, as my kids are rioting, but it's there)
I think gp means by aberration, "it's not something that most people have to worry about". Which is true. If even 10% of Americans had to deal with this it would become illegal. The police prey on those they think they can get away with, and those who have a lot of assets to forfeit (but not too much). They
are often right.
Yes, this is correct, and I can’t imagine any other definition of the word. Accepting the claim that this happens to thousands every year, that still puts us in “odds of being struck by lightning” territory. It’s still wrong, the laws should be changed, but no one should fear coming to the US on account of it.
Even if you fit the skin color type, AND the car type AND the speeding profile, you'd probably STILL have to make multiple trips driving up and down states where your license plate doesn't match to bring the likelihood up above "aberrant"... You would be driving so much you wouldn't have time to read and comment hn. (I just drove across four states and there was no time for hn, and I'm an addict).
Yeah, I cited the white HN craigslist car buyer as a kind of 'it can happen to even us!!'abberation. Probably 99% of civil forfeitures are seized from black/hispanic people.
E.g., yes, "those they (police) think they can get away with" but not "those who have a lot of assets to forfeit".
I think most of the cases I've read about on this site were like (non-white) people flying with, say, $25,000 (and who could credibly claim that was roughly their total liquid net worth).
It is possible for 99% of civil asset forfeitures to happen to minorities AND for 99% of minorities to not have to deal with them.
Also, If you are a minority, and the police stop you while driving, you are probably more worried about other things like police violence, than civil asset forfeiture (this doesn't excuse civil asset forfeiture ofc)
I recall an episode of COPS where the Sheriff (?) of Multnomah County Oregon was grinning into the camera, declaring how good he's going to look driving around a pickup truck that they'd just confiscated.
Multnomah County featured a lot on COPS. That Sheriff was camera ready.
That doesn’t refute my “aberration” claim. If you can demonstrate that even 1% of citizens or tourists have been subjected to civil forfeiture then I’ll withdraw my claim. But I’m pretty sure CF is on the order of “struck by lightning”.
Of course, the reading comprehension of people in this thread has been aggressively low, so I will repeat that none of this vindicates CF.
The best thing about civil asset forfeiture is that it gives us funny case names like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls[1]. Otherwise it's terrible. I don't have a problem with convictions carrying an obligation to make financial restitution, but this isn't that. The notion of filing suit against an inanimate object is ridiculous.
> Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked.
Mistake number one. The only things you should be saying to a cop are "lawyer" and "". They ask if they can search your vehicle? The answer is no, always, on principle.
And even though, on principle, there's nothing wrong with it, why would you ride around with 86k in cash on you? That was also a mistake.
What the officers did was wrong, civil asset forfeiture is wrong, the man was well within his rights, but at the end of the day you're responsible for yourself. Know your rights, know your recourse, exercise them, and protect yourself from everybody, even the Good Guys™
I used to live in Winnemucca, NV. State Patrol and Humboldt County sherrifs used to do this All the time. Thankfully never had any cash on me, although they grilled me pretty hard about some skis one time.
There must be more to this, what are the odds a person who keeps life savings in cash happens to move it at the time some police are prowling to invent a reason to stop and search a vehicle, and happens to be the vehicle chosen?
I'm not saying 'great law guys, nothing to see here' (in my country a quick search suggests same exists, but needs a warrant from a magistrate, and there's no DEA for that weird twist) but the article just seems to be painting it in the most bizarre obviously wrong light possible.
If you put it in the bank, as others suggest, you're opting into financial surveillance as half of KYC/AML is focused around turning the financial services industry into a surveillance for law enforcement.
The real problem is that law enforcement has a fairly good chance of getting a big chunk of money, and your odds of litigating successfully without those funds are low.
That's the fundamental problem. Fix legalized theft by law enforcement. The rest will sort itself out.
I think the ability to resist overreaching policies like civil forfeiture is one of the strongest arguments for people in the western world to have access to cryptocurrencies.
Trump is probably responsible for this, as his Justice Department reversed the limitations on federal loot-sharing put in effect by Obama’s administration. Has Biden fixed this? Why not? All he needs to do is order the DEA and his other agencies not to commit or cooperate with civil forfeiture.
They would also seize the $9000, $900 and maybe even $90 if they could get away with it without doing too much work. After all their department gets to keep 80% of it and a $72 bonus for a bit of paperwork sounds good, a few of those and they can upgrade the coffee machine.
Civil forfeiture is wrong but the story described here is bizarre. The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle? It may not be a crime but it is really stupid. What if he was in a wreck? Something does not add up here. Free checking and savings accounts exist and they are FDIC insured.
There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.
Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1]
It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel.
The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them.
>Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1]
Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution.
Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business.
This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.
According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.)
Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances.
Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.
The parent said civil forfeiture was wrong—he seems to agree with you, but he’s making a different point that keeping your life’s savings in your car is a bad idea for many other reasons besides civil forfeiture.
I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days.
What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one."
The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
The issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.
No, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.
So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.
I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.
As a defense attorney, I take the professional position that nobody should consent to a search.
However, I am aware that police officers can be very convincing that they're friendly guys on your side. And in this case, perhaps he was -- after all, the officer who initiated the stop argued against the civil forfeiture. Social conditioning is a heck of a thing.
The problem with never consenting to a search or never talking to police is the ease with which cops can ruin your weekend (and even life) if they get pissed off at you. I may be able afford a lawyer but is the night in jail worth the effort to assert my rights?
This is why cops on Interstates will target out of state plates. People just want to get on to their destination. And not being a state resident, it makes it harder for them to fight after the fact. [citation needed]
This is surreal. They can invent anything to get in your car. "sir you insulted me" "what is it on your seat it looks like a weapon (when it is a phone)" "look my dog sniffed something"
As a military veteran the guy might have had some misplaced respect/trust for police officers previously.
His consent wasn't likely to be required. That consent is merely a superficial layer, easily discarded by staging dog alerting. If the guy didn't consent out of misplaced respect, he may have chosen to do so because he realized the cops can get in your car if they particularly want to no matter what you do. And once he mentioned the large amounts of cash, that was that.
The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
The bill of rights doesn’t actually give you rights. The premise of the bill of rights is people have rights superior to the government and the government is explicitly required to respect certain rights as listed as well as respect other rights and authorities not explicitly listed (9th amendment). In fact the 9th amendment explicitly forbids construction of a rationale by the government to deny rights, listed or not listed.
Of course, I’m only a citizen of the United States, not a gov’t official or attorney or judge. So naturally my plain reading of the Constitution and the writings surrounding its adoption are JustMyOpinion. Considering the government’s resources are far superior its best to kowtow to the government’s interpretation should one run afoul of such things and hope that due process will sort it out eventually.
Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count.
The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
First off, I don't know that for sure. (Do you know that for sure? Have you read every law and every binding precedent in your jurisdiction?)
Second, I'm not saying that possession of cash is a crime, I'm saying it might be probable cause of some other crime, such as dealing drugs or whatever.
Where the Statutes are nice and all, but it's the case law that makes up the majority of the iceberg. You can legally construct an argument with the right cherry picking to justify anything, and the court won't give you time to in the moment read up to ensure that what your opponent claims even makes sense.
You may be getting downvote d for seeming unwilling to "read the link" but you have a 100% sound point.
The law isn't worth the paper it is written on until a judge makes a decision on that particular case, which will be heavily dependent on the arguments prosecution and defense both bring. Which all happens after your encounter with Law Enforcement.
However...
I do want to encourage you that the right you do not assert in the encounter with Law enforcement does not contribute at all to an effective defense. Most reasonability tests only weigh what is said in the exchange to the point where you must clearly and unambiguously use certain legal "magic words" to dispel any illusion of muddied waters for the courts.
Think of it as a protocol.
A cop can stop you. You must accept the interruption.
Hello officer, how are you?
If they ask if you know why they stopped you.
"No sir, but I'm sure you're about to let me know."
You must provide identification if requested.
They must provide a reason for stopping you.
If they ask for consent to search the vehicle, your answer is "No, I do not consent. Are we done here? Or is there more I can help you with Officer?"
They should either respond with:
"You are free to go." End transaction.
Or,
They will assert some justification for further detaining you. If they assert the smell of alcohol or drugs, or a need to breathalyze you, you must consent in most jurisdictions. If you do not consent to be breathalyzed there, or suspect their equipment, you are entitled to be transported to a medical facility to do a drug test to confirm or dispute the result.
If you've done nothing wrong, and you've gotten this far you are now playing paperwork chicken with this cop. They have paperwork to fill out, and you do not. On the other hand, cops are largely immune to the pain of paperwork from doing it day in, day out. If you have a phone, I recommend letting somebody know things are getting interesting, so they can echo it to your social circle. Even employers will usually understand this type of thing can happen. You still do not consent to having your vehicle searched. You inform the officer you'd like to call someone to come pick up the vehicle. If your phone is in your pocket, you tell them that and make sure they understand what you are doing, or allow them to get out the phone from where it is stored if they strike you as twitchy. I'd recommend only doing that as a last resort. Try if at all possible to never leave your phone somewhere a cop can clearly access on your person, or observe there is not a weapon hidden ahead of time.
Note:
Miranda doesn't have to happen until you are formally under arrest. Don't jump the gun. DUI isn't confirmed until the test results are in. It's a pain.
After all of this...
"Am I free to go?"
If yes, end transaction.
If no, God help you, the fates do not smile upon you this day. You will have the makings of an excellent harassment case if this continues for more than 24 hours without them either formally charging you with something, or letting you go.
Contrary to popular belief, cops are people too, and likely have an aversion to having their time wasted. If you get a malicious one, then as scary as the prospect is, the system is still people'd by reasonable folks.
ACAB isn't necessarily a given, but they are not your ally. Ever. Dealing with them is one step closer to having your life ruined. So always stick to protocol.
Be courteous.
Follow protocol.
They must justify their actions in an Official capacity.
Make it as easy for them to finish the process.
If you get into a failure state, just do everything in your power to make sure someone else knows.
He is a brilliant man, 86k is very cheap to not just treat but actually cure a psychological problem. Now he is not paranoid, the rest of us are just stupid.
> The stop was a pretext to ask Stephen about his trip, and “a bunch of silly questions,” like “[are there] any large amounts of United States currency in the vehicle.”
Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car.
If the DEA really didn't comply with it's legal obligations about returning the money/explaining though, I guess the guy has a pretty strong case to get it all back plus a bit extra.
Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever. Principle?
> Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car.
… or he asks everyone that he pulls over that question.
In jurisdictions that make heavy use of civil forfeiture, it’s a standard question. It’s unfortunately common in some small towns and low population counties as it’s a large chunk of their funding.
The incentives are aligned for cops to ask the question as much as possible–if their local department gets to keep a good chunk of the seized money, that’s more in the bank to pay for all sorts of stuff, including additional overtime hours aka money directly in the officers pockets.
It's fucking Nevada. They already knew exactly which Dea agent to call. These asshats probably troll for gamblers and steal much lower amounts all the time.
> Have you heard of parallel construction? Perhaps he and his wife had discussed the cash in private messages.
That's why I said they had some other reason to think he had cash.
> If he did this (and he may have done) why do you think they would give him his money back?
As the article explained, if he can provide evidence of how he came by the money legally, he gets it back. Otherwise the federal government is breaking the law, no?
> As the article explained, if he can provide evidence of how he came by the money legally, he gets it back. Otherwise the federal government is breaking the law, no?
Even on the face of it, that is a blatant violation of the presumption of innocence and it boggles the mind that this is deemed constitutional in the USA. Even the 90 day term is wildly unacceptable for taking someone's possessions without a clear cause - perhaps 90 minutes?
They kept the money for 200 days, in violation of the Federal statute requiring the DEA to file a case within 90 days. It's unclear what, if any, repercussions there will be for the DEA for violating the law. Astoundingly, the Nevada Highway Patrol did not violate the law. That only means, of course, it's a terrible law and needs to be eliminated. Hopefully there will be some consequences for police that abuse this bad law, but that will have to come from local voters.
Note that $87k in 100's is a stack about 4" thick. It sickens me to hear people blaming the victim for the non-crime of holding his own cash, with bank receipts, and for the non-crime of simply telling the officer the truth and being totally cooperative. The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.
1 - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nh...