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".
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).
https://www.fincen.gov/fact-sheet-industry-msb-suspicious-ac...
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
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.
Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
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.
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.
That's what the amendment system is for.
The US is deeply flawed but generally speaking we have a lot of rights
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Brazil we have a problem with the Judiciary too, most of it is completely detached from reality, due to these exact same reasons.
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.
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?"
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.
Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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...
Do you have a source for that?
It also seems like he succeeded, because the original and all reuploads except for some ultra low-quality copies are gone from youtube.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are being dismissive of the issue though; and it's never helpful.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Nothing more to say.
It makes more sense when you ask "Who bears the burden of these loopholes?" and the answer is always "They disadvantage people of colour".
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.
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.
I'll add taxes to the list.
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"?
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.
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.
Or at least that was the way it was shown on this one episode of whatever show I saw it on.
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.
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.
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.
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
Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
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.
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.
You act as if this is a bad thing. They have those powers over everyone else.
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.
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?
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.
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.
There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
Or what does „wrap it up in their probate“ mean?
If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was no crime
> 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?
If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it, it's unclaimed property [1].
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.
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".
Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.
Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.
Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Just carrots, whatever the definition, won't fix everything, there are assholes in every profession, you need sticks too.
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.
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.
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.
Not really, cases on civil forfeiture do make it to the US Supreme Court, the most recent case being decided in 2024.
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 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.
@blindriver was correct (IMHO) to rail against civil forfeiture and @nadermx responded with a low effort opaque un-HN worthy quip.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242If 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.
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.
His team of researchers and comedians (ex college humor alumns) do the research and it comes out of his off-putting mouth and face.
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.
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?
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.
But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
I'm certain the social media and sensationalist broadcast media have over time nudged people closer to mob justice. Further to that, some of the wins of civil libertarians against draconian law enforcement has been eroded away by giving law enforcement sweeping powers via circumventions on due process such as the Patriot Act and that which is detailed in the OP
I dunno, man. Hang out with better people? Or maybe have a conversation with the ones you do hang out with to discover their actual opinions, rather than taking their Internet-hard-man bloviation at face value?
> ...by giving law enforcement sweeping powers...
What Congresscritters gives the cops has very little to do with what us little people think is important.
I’ve been living in the world for long enough to see it change.
It doesn’t matter what you or I (or an impartial jury) think if law enforcement can just ignore due process. If people cared enough about civil liberties, legislation like the Patriot Act would have at least been repealed instead of extended, things like fraudulent civil forfeiture and the prison industrial complex would have been dealt with. Instead it has become accepted by everyday people that it’s okay to concede those liberties to reduce the burden of evidence for law enforcement in the name of whatever bogeyman the rabble rousers can invoke (e.g., war on drugs, terrorism, illegal immigration, being ‘tough on crime’). The OP article, along with a growing movement of decriminalization represents perhaps a turning of the tide in repealing this legislation, but even if that is true, you’ve got to wonder how we got here in the first place.
Sure. Agreed.
> If people cared enough about civil liberties, legislation like the Patriot Act would have at least been repealed instead of extended [and] things like fraudulent civil forfeiture.. would have been dealt with.
Nah. The average person has effectively zero input into what happens at the Federal level. It's not that they don't care. It's that they can't do shit about it.
A lot of people cared about the Mexican border the last election, and it made a real impact on votes. For better or worse, Trump now has a mandate on border and immigration policy that he'll most likely put to use. That's not to say that election policy platforms are always followed through with (e.g., Obama doubled down on Iraq instead of ending the war, disillusioning many of his voters), but they often are. If people cared more about civil liberties as they did border immigration, a political party would tap into that sentiment, but I'm not seeing that.
Votes from the little people don't have an impact on what happens at the Federal level, they just change who's in the seat talking with the folks who actually have input into the decision-making process.
(As you mention, campaign promises aren't actually considered to be promises by the people that make them... they're soundbites built to try to get the little people to put the candidate in the seat.)
> A lot of people cared about the Mexican border the last election...
And I'd argue that a much, much larger reason Harris wasn't elected was that housing, food, and fuel costs have been and continue to rise rapidly, but Harris's political party continues to repeat the "Inflation is under control. Look at the numbers! The economy is doing great!!" soundbite. Will someone wearing the other team's jersey actually attempt to do something about the problem? I doubt it... but roughly half of the people who chose to vote seem to have thought it was worth a shot.
I agree to disagree here. The election of, say, Trump vs not-Trump, will have a huge impact not just domestically, but on geopolitics writ-large.
> much larger reason Harris wasn't elected was that housing, food, and fuel costs have been and continue to rise rapidly
Maybe. There's a plurality of reasons (and influential demographics) that could be cited. Certainly one strong signal that came through—demography-wise—was that Hispanic males swung to GOP. One theory on this is that new waves of northwards immigration are causing some in-group tension, specifically around access to jobs.
But certainly all economic indicators in November were looking good. The damage was done on inflation, but the inflation rate was brought back under control. Unemployment was ticking upwards but still only slightly higher than pre-pandemic. But as you say, long-term declines in real wages and housing stock are squeezing peoples' finances, and certainly no political party seems willing to attend to that before heads start rolling.
Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
Weird. I pay for nearly everything with cash.
I agree that nearly all of the rest of the stuff your comment describes is totally real and totally bullshit, but please don't ruin a good retelling of the facts with breathless hyperbole.
If using and carrying cash was illegal, I wouldn't be able to go to -say- Wal*Mart and hand them cash in exchange for goods and services.
I agree that cops in many jurisdictions are permitted to engage in consequence-free-for-the-perpetrators highway robbery whenever they encounter someone carrying cash. The thing that's illegal in that scenario is the robbery.
If you want another example of things that technically should be and people think are illegal for the government to do but are not because the government decided the constitution is inconvenient, look at the 100 mile border zone around the US, of which 2/3rds of people live in, that allows the government to ignore the 4th amendment and other rights. If the feds decide they want to search you without cause, they can just claim they think you are involved with or are an illegal and search you and your property without cause or proof of anything and also setup checkpoints and stop and search everyone in it. And even outside of the external borders, airports have also on occasion been considered a border point to justify such searches and checkpoint stops.
Just because some law isn't regularly enforced over some situation doesn't mean there isn't a law somewhere on the books to do so.
It depends on the particulars. Not every roadside seize stands up to actual inspection. I'd bet that MOST of them (by number of seizures performed) wouldn't. See [0] for a few examples that caught the attention of the news.
> ...the 100 mile border zone...
I live in San Francisco. I'm quite aware. However, that -too- is policy that's continually being eroded by repeated court scrutiny. It's also -in fact- limited to warrantless inspection of immigration documentation... for anything else, you need either "probable cause" or a warrant (which is true for all searches everywhere in the US). [1]
[0] https://www.npr.org/2008/06/16/91555835/cash-seizures-by-pol...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone#are-there-...
That's a pretty massive limit considering there is no form of federal citizenship ID people carry around and there is no straight forward way to prove you are a US citizen on the spot. It is essentially "Papers please!" except most people don't have papers. Even my state driver's license doesn't say "US citizen" on it, nor is it proof of citizenship since non-citizens also get state drivers licenses. So what if they claim they think im an illegal? Then detain me for not having my immigration papers? Throw me in a jail cell and the only thing that happens when im let out is "Oops, see ya next time!". What if they know im a full US citizen but decide to claim they think im hiding illegals in my vehicle? They are under no obligations to pay for damages done during a legal search and merely claiming to suspect illegals in my vehicle could result in them searching it and ripping my seats out.
At no point will be I be compensated for the disregard of my rights because it is legal. If I take monetary losses because of these stops, there is also no recourse except maybe in the most extreme examples they might pay end up paying for a repair, but only after I gamble significant amounts of money on a lawyer, that not everyone has to start with, nor does everyone win.
> They are under no obligations to pay for damages done during a legal search...
Nah, I don't believe this. I totally believe that they're not obligated to compensate you for time spent waiting for them to get done jacking themselves off over your car, nor are they obligated to help you perform basic reinstallation work [0] to get yourself back on the road, but I don't believe your claim as written. Link me to some court cases that support it.
[0] For example, reinstalling removable seats would be basic reinstallation. Reassembling and reinstalling a disassembled primary fuel tank would not.
A 5 second google search will bring you up endless legal explanations from lawyer firms that if it is a legal search you have almost no chance of getting your money back unless you can someone get an officer to admit to damaging your property without cause, and good luck with that when they know they can just claim they were performing a legal search. And a few more minutes you will find endless cases of damage awards being denied, even in many cases where the search was found to not be legal to start with and all criminal charges dropped.
If you don’t mind reporting when moving into the electronic cash system or between borders then it is not illegal
The vast vast majority of the money supply exists as electronic balances, the entire M2
If you have a liquidity concern about harassment then have balances and passive growth in all forms of liquidity. Cash, electronic cash, crypto. Then you never have to transfer balances between those systems and dont have to make it your whole identity.