Cops Using Devices To Seize Funds On Prepaid Cards

MacLeod said:
Right. Cause that's what cops do.

OK, well I've said my piece. I'm off now to shakedown some innocent motorists on their way home from church. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that cops can completely control their emotions, prejudices, and would be above it all?

I routinely carry around 100 bucks in my wallet, probably more. I might go er and um when intimidated by a cop. And cops intimidate as a start and go from there.

*Not sure if his is a double post, seemed like it was but after delete both went away.
 
MacLeod said:
Oh for fuck sake. Another [H]yped up anti-cop story.
Click to expand...

We are anti-cop? Since when!?!?

I know there have been a lot of recent "the cops / feds / government are doing this" stories but that is just reporting the news when it is tech related.

No one supports our police and armed forces more than we do. :(
 
Steve said:
We are anti-cop? Since when!?!?

I know there have been a lot of recent "the cops / feds / government are doing this" stories but that is just reporting the news when it is tech related.

No one supports our police and armed forces more than we do. :(
Click to expand...

[H]ardOCP doesn't seem to be pro or con either way but the membership of this forum generally is anti-cop. I mean just look at this thread. 3 pages and I'm the ONLY one defending law enforcement. Now granted we've only had a couple douche nozzles spitting baseless insults and 2/3 of this thread have been good honest intellectual debate which I'm all for but usually these things turn into fire breathing hate for cops. The SoapBox is chock full of them. I'm not talking about the "feds/government" threads, I'm talking about just outright hate for the lowly road cop on the front lines. It got so bad there for a while that I asked Major for a ban from there just so I wouldn't have to see them on my New Posts list all the time.

My beef with this thread was that it made it out like we were now shaking people down for their gift cards and stealing their Christmas money. This is nothing that we couldn't already do before. It's just now with the scanners, they can swipe them and do it instantly instead of confiscating the cards themselves. The same level of probable cause exists with this as it does with any seizure of property.

But pulling people over and taking money from a pre-paid account without a warrant or court order doesn't seem right at all.
Click to expand...

That is misleading as hell right there and not anywhere close to what is actually happening.

Look, I'm not whining. I know cops will never be popular because you're probably only going to interact with us when we're pulling you over for speeding or something. I get and accept that is the nature of the job. It's the notion that we're just a rampaging mob out there beating, killing and robbing people at will that breaks my heart and pisses me off at the same time and that, like here, you're tried and convicted (no pun intended) by people that have absolutely zero clue how to do the job or what it's like or any context of it. Like this one here, it's simply about rampaging cops robbing little old ladies of their social security money. And it's true of course because I found in Wikipedia where this one time, at band camp, this one cop, he took some guys money for no reason! Cops suck.

But whatever. I'm sure I'll be ranting and raving in the next thread too. I'll keep trying and if I can just win one person over, it'll be worth it. :p
 
MacLeod said:
Right because that's part of the probable cause. If you look like a homeless guy but have $10,000 in cash, that is going to be effective suspicious. If you don't think so then you're simply not being intellectually honest. Appearance matters.
Click to expand...
First off appearance isn't suspicious....

Why is that suspicious? Sometimes I wear shitty clothes because why ruin good ones while working? I guess when I cash my check from working all week welding 6 foot pipe and I'm in dirty oily jeans with thousands of dollars in my pocket I must be up to something right? If I drive a old rusty pickup truck and have lots of money how is that suspicious? If it still runs and is reliable why replace it - I could give less than a fuck about keeping up with the Jonses, I'm not out to impress anyone.

Finally, fuck your mindset. Legal behavior isn't suspicious. An honest story told to a judge would be, "your honor, i witnessed the defendant behaving lawfully in a way I didn't like, he had lots of money on him, which is not a crime, but most people don't hang out at grocery stores on their day off helping disabled people load their cars so he was 'suspicious', so I took his money, I think he must have been planning to steal their prescription drugs, even though I have no evidence that shows he did".
 
Last edited:
MacLeod said:
[H]ardOCP doesn't seem to be pro or con either way but the membership of this forum generally is anti-cop. I mean just look at this thread. 3 pages and I'm the ONLY one defending law enforcement. Now granted we've only had a couple douche nozzles spitting baseless insults and 2/3 of this thread have been good honest intellectual debate which I'm all for but usually these things turn into fire breathing hate for cops. The SoapBox is chock full of them. I'm not talking about the "feds/government" threads, I'm talking about just outright hate for the lowly road cop on the front lines. It got so bad there for a while that I asked Major for a ban from there just so I wouldn't have to see them on my New Posts list all the time.

My beef with this thread was that it made it out like we were now shaking people down for their gift cards and stealing their Christmas money. This is nothing that we couldn't already do before. It's just now with the scanners, they can swipe them and do it instantly instead of confiscating the cards themselves. The same level of probable cause exists with this as it does with any seizure of property.



That is misleading as hell right there and not anywhere close to what is actually happening.

Look, I'm not whining. I know cops will never be popular because you're probably only going to interact with us when we're pulling you over for speeding or something. I get and accept that is the nature of the job. It's the notion that we're just a rampaging mob out there beating, killing and robbing people at will that breaks my heart and pisses me off at the same time and that, like here, you're tried and convicted (no pun intended) by people that have absolutely zero clue how to do the job or what it's like or any context of it. Like this one here, it's simply about rampaging cops robbing little old ladies of their social security money. And it's true of course because I found in Wikipedia where this one time, at band camp, this one cop, he took some guys money for no reason! Cops suck.

But whatever. I'm sure I'll be ranting and raving in the next thread too. I'll keep trying and if I can just win one person over, it'll be worth it. :p
Click to expand...

To be honest, every one of your posts in this thread, nearly every sentence, exemplifies the typical simple thinking cop mentality that concerns the people you are heroically trying to win over .

Just in the quote above you display the mindset that this is somehow an attack on cops, that cops are the victim and they must be aggressively defended because you are also a cop who knows the facts, and that because this device is "legal" it is acceptable, etc. all while shifting focus from how many abuses have occurred and how this raises the potential for even more abuse.

You haven't even addressed why immediate access to the funds on the cards is so beneficial and outweighs any of the concerns. What problem does the device solve and why is it the best solution? I would think good honest intellectual debate would include such things.
 
swimming pool said:
To be honest, every one of your posts in this thread, nearly every sentence, exemplifies the typical simple thinking cop mentality that concerns the people you are heroically trying to win over .

Just in the quote above you display the mindset that this is somehow an attack on cops, that cops are the victim and they must be aggressively defended because you are also a cop who knows the facts, and that because this device is "legal" it is acceptable, etc. all while shifting focus from how many abuses have occurred and how this raises the potential for even more abuse.

You haven't even addressed why immediate access to the funds on the cards is so beneficial and outweighs any of the concerns. What problem does the device solve and why is it the best solution? I would think good honest intellectual debate would include such things.
Click to expand...

I can answer why he hasn't! There isn't one, period.
 
Who the F is going to be traveling with a bundle of gift cards and leave them in a place where a cop will find them... The REAL thieves are going to have them in a mini safe in the wheel well in the trunk and refuse a search.. If they even travel with them at all. People getting caught like this are either f'ing idiots or innocent.
 
MacLeod said:
That is misleading as hell right there and not anywhere close to what is actually happening.
Click to expand...

you say its not happening, except it has been well documented, is occurring, without due process or court orders. sources from many areas with varied agendas are reporting these things, so its not just a leftist, or an "anti" source.

in the same reasoning in use by police, my family and friends with kids who tend to receive a handful of amazon gift cards around christmas/birthdays, could easily fit the stack of cards easily used as payment qualifier that leads to these seizures.

civil forfeiture is one area of the law where due process was left out, by design, and as such is ripe with abuse by authorities. often just the "gut feeling" of an officer is enough to take money.

your statement about the "front lines" is a perfect example of the mindset, this "us versus them" (LEO serving only the state) war that seems to be building every time we turn on the news, which in the end has weakens law enforcement, undermines their lawful authority, and destroys their reputation.

swimming pool said:
You haven't even addressed why immediate access to the funds on the cards is so beneficial and outweighs any of the concerns. What problem does the device solve and why is it the best solution? I would think good honest intellectual debate would include such things.
Click to expand...

if the money remains on the card it might fall under different property rules (just a guess) which means they might have to give it back. its more likely that they cant risk cancellation and recovery (lost card) by the purchaser/owner.

edit: also to remember walmart and american express have preyed upon a large group of people who dont do well with banks by having them use preloaded cards (bluebird, green dot etc) usually getting them to do so by waiving check cashing fees if they put it on the card.
"well golley they could be taking peoples whole paychecks"
 
Last edited:
This whole cops stealing money, apparently legally and without check, confuses the hell out of me. I just don't understand how this could be allowed to happen. Supposedly legally and without challenge?
 
FurbySlayer said:
if the money remains on the card it might fall under different property rules (just a guess) which means they might have to give it back. its more likely that they cant risk cancellation and recovery (lost card) by the purchaser/owner.

edit: also to remember walmart and american express have preyed upon a large group of people who dont do well with banks by having them use preloaded cards (bluebird, green dot etc) usually getting them to do so by waiving check cashing fees if they put it on the card.
"well golley they could be taking peoples whole paychecks"
Click to expand...

I think at it's core, there may likely be some law enforcement value in possessing the capabilities of the device. Maybe having one or two back at the station that can read the cards, and freeze the funds, might be acceptable for certain situations if it falls within the 4th amendment. Maybe a portable device that can read the cards.

But the need for an ability to immediately transfer funds to the government from any location? It doesn't make sense unless the motivation is to simply make it easier to keep the money.

ERAD promotional video:
 
TwiceOver said:
Umm. Just because someone has cash doesn't mean they have to explain to you where it came from. Last I checked it isn't illegal to have cash. And then that person has to get a lawyer to deal with this illegal bull shit.
Click to expand...

I think you better check again. :(
 
NeghVar said:
Pass a state law criminalizing civil forfeiture without due process and make it retroactive.
Click to expand...

We need a law that requires the Police to securely hold any items or cash seized until charges have been files. If no charges are filed within 30 days, they need to return all items/cash along with 10% interest. If they don't return it within 30 days, the interest accrues at an addition 5% per month.
 
swimming pool said:
But the need for an ability to immediately transfer funds to the government from any location? It doesn't make sense unless the motivation is to simply make it easier to keep the money.
Click to expand...

Seriously.. even if, and I do mean if, holding cash may mean you just sold drugs.... how he hell does that justify a card reader to take money out of cards, like your debit and credit? That's a whole new level of bull on top of the whole cash.
 
KarsusTG said:
Who the F is going to be traveling with a bundle of gift cards and leave them in a place where a cop will find them... The REAL thieves are going to have them in a mini safe in the wheel well in the trunk and refuse a search.. If they even travel with them at all. People getting caught like this are either f'ing idiots or innocent.
Click to expand...

When you refuse the search, it just triggers the thug to assume there's something to find. They'll call for a drug sniffing dog, which will be trained to give a false positive on command. Once the dog gives the signal, it's fucking game on. They'll tear your car to shreds until they find something. If you're lucky, they might call you a cab so you don't have to walk home.
 
That's the thing isn't it? If you don't refuse, they search you, if you refuse, they have "probable cause" to search you anyway.

Where's that cop guy? I want his opinion on this.
 
MacLeod said:
[H]ardOCP doesn't seem to be pro or con either way but the membership of this forum generally is anti-cop. I mean just look at this thread. 3 pages and I'm the ONLY one defending law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Well what you have to ask then, is why are so many people 'anti-cop' these days?

What's going wrong here?

My take? Corruption flows down from the top and its seeped into law-enforcement big time. That and to be honest training and entry quality levels for local law enforcement are pretty piss poor.
 
pothb said:
Where's that cop guy? I want his opinion on this.
Click to expand...
He left in a huff because we refused to agree that disheveled guys driving around in old cars was sufficient evidence to suspect someone of being a drug dealer.

That "logic" probably would make sense to an Oklahoma judge so it's not like running it past one means there would be any level of scrutiny worth a damn. I learned my lesson decades ago to stay far away from those tiny towns where the more intelligent you are just tends to piss the local authorities off more.
 
I like police and can't imagine how bad society would be without them.

However, I think the vast majority of us are willing to let a few guilty people keep their money in exchange for getting rid of this unconstitutional civil forfeiture crap.

That's all this argument is about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LazN
like this
Wrecked Em said:
When you refuse the search, it just triggers the thug to assume there's something to find. They'll call for a drug sniffing dog, which will be trained to give a false positive on command. Once the dog gives the signal, it's fucking game on. They'll tear your car to shreds until they find something. If you're lucky, they might call you a cab so you don't have to walk home.
Click to expand...

I'll refuse a search everytime. If they get a dog and hit a false positive the only thing they'll find is one of the three guns I have in my car. They'll already know about the guns though thanks to Michigan'state dumb notify laws. Even if you are a law abiding citizen you refuse a search everytime.
 
FFS MacLeod I'll defend cops actions and give them the benefit of the doubt in almost anything they do because I know it's a rough job but CAF is FUCKING BULLSHIT. "I think you might be doing something wrong but I don't have any solid proof but I'm going to take your stuff anyway, not file any charges on you, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your stuff is 100% innocent otherwise we get to keep it" is outright thievery. Can you honestly tell me that cops having "reasonable suspicion" because someone story changed too much because they either add stuff they forgot or forgot to repeat something on retelling, or their story sounds fake because it's too consistent or any tiny reason they can think of that just barely passes as "reasonable suspicion" as soon as they find a large amount of cash and letting them seize all their money, belongings, and car leaving them stranded on the side of the road or in front of the police station after they take them in and fail to find anything to actually charge them on is ok with you? If you have reason to arrest them sure, lock it all up in evidence, if the DA finds reason to charge them, keep it in evidence, once they're tried and convicted in a court of law all that can go to the cops, but if at any point along the way they're released with no charges filed they should get their stuff back because obviously there's no, or not enough, evidence of wrong doing to keep them or their stuff! You absolutely positively should not be allowed to keep anything without due process just because you thought it might maybe have been fruits of a crime without any proof of said crime.

How about for CAF cases if the person who's stuff you steal proves in court that it was legitimately theirs that the police department that stole that person's goods has to return 100% of the stolen property, plus pay for any and all lawyers fees, interest for the entire value of the property stolen for the entire time it was stolen at a rate 10% higher than the fed, and if the theft of the money resulted in lost financial opportunities for the victim, such as if the money was intended to buy/start a business which failed due to the theft, or any financial hardships due to the theft such as loss of vehicle or home, then the victim can sue the police for 200% of the value of the losses incurred due to the theft. There would be no cap on lawyers fees either, they can hire the most expensive one in the area and spend as much time as needed to prove the case and if they win, cops pay for it all.

"I think you might have done a crime, or at least I think I can bullshit a reason in court, so I'm not going to charge you with anything just take your stuff"? Seriously go fuck yourself.
 
pothb said:
That's the thing isn't it? If you don't refuse, they search you, if you refuse, they have "probable cause" to search you anyway.

Where's that cop guy? I want his opinion on this.
Click to expand...

I cannot search your car without your consent or probable cause and refusing to let me search is NOT probable cause. The strong odor of marijuana or seeing a bag of weed or meth pipe inside the car is probable cause. You don't have to say a word to me on a traffic stop.

I can't make you wait until a K9 shows up either. The only way I can do that is if I can have one there in the amount of time it takes me to conduct a traffic stop. Say I stop you for running a stop sign, it'll take me 5-10 minutes to make contact with you, talk for a second, run your license and tag, fill out ticket or warning then cut you loose. If I suspect you've got drugs in your car I can call for a K9 (most agencies don't have one anyway) but if it takes 20-30 minutes for them to get there, anything I find is probably going to be thrown out because I detained you longer than was necessary for me to conduct the traffic stop for the only thing you're actually guilty of, running the stop sign.

And on the appearance, wearing crappy clothes does not make you a crook. However if you look like a skeleton with skin draped over it,smell like you haven't bathed in a couple days, rotted out teeth and sores all over your arm, I'm going to suspect you're on meth. When I say "appearance" I mean everything about you, not just your clothes. Construction workers are usually dirty with worn out clothes too but that doesn't make me think they've got meth on them. Stopping/detaining somebody based solely on their appearance is illegal and rightly so. What I'm talking about is after stopping somebody based on probable cause like a busted taillight, if they look like I described above, I'm probably going to look in the car a little more thoroughly, get a little closer to the window to see if I can catch a whiff of something, ask for consent to search and so on. If you're a 50 year old soccer mom in a $60,000 SUV, I'm probably not going to find any meth in there, I'm still going to check her license for warrants though.
 
-Dragon- said:
FFS MacLeod I'll defend cops actions and give them the benefit of the doubt in almost anything they do because I know it's a rough job but CAF is FUCKING BULLSHIT. "I think you might be doing something wrong but I don't have any solid proof but I'm going to take your stuff anyway, not file any charges on you, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your stuff is 100% innocent otherwise we get to keep it" is outright thievery. Can you honestly tell me that cops having "reasonable suspicion" because someone story changed too much because they either add stuff they forgot or forgot to repeat something on retelling, or their story sounds fake because it's too consistent or any tiny reason they can think of that just barely passes as "reasonable suspicion" as soon as they find a large amount of cash and letting them seize all their money, belongings, and car leaving them stranded on the side of the road or in front of the police station after they take them in and fail to find anything to actually charge them on is ok with you? If you have reason to arrest them sure, lock it all up in evidence, if the DA finds reason to charge them, keep it in evidence, once they're tried and convicted in a court of law all that can go to the cops, but if at any point along the way they're released with no charges filed they should get their stuff back because obviously there's no, or not enough, evidence of wrong doing to keep them or their stuff! You absolutely positively should not be allowed to keep anything without due process just because you thought it might maybe have been fruits of a crime without any proof of said crime.

How about for CAF cases if the person who's stuff you steal proves in court that it was legitimately theirs that the police department that stole that person's goods has to return 100% of the stolen property, plus pay for any and all lawyers fees, interest for the entire value of the property stolen for the entire time it was stolen at a rate 10% higher than the fed, and if the theft of the money resulted in lost financial opportunities for the victim, such as if the money was intended to buy/start a business which failed due to the theft, or any financial hardships due to the theft such as loss of vehicle or home, then the victim can sue the police for 200% of the value of the losses incurred due to the theft. There would be no cap on lawyers fees either, they can hire the most expensive one in the area and spend as much time as needed to prove the case and if they win, cops pay for it all.

"I think you might have done a crime, or at least I think I can bullshit a reason in court, so I'm not going to charge you with anything just take your stuff"? Seriously go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem with this. I'd be totally fine with them changing it to nothing can be seized if there are no charges. That's more than fair to me. I'm all for ways to make this law more fair with more reasonable safeguards. What I'm doing here is defending against the idea that cops are just using this law to just go door to door and take people's shit or because 1 cop used this as an excuse to rip somebody off we need to shitcan the whole thing plus trying to add some context and explain how law enforcement uses this. Me personally, I would never seize somebody's shit without also charging them with a related crime and I maintain that is what happens the vast vast vast majority of the time. I don't have actual numbers but I'd bet the percentage of seized property without charges being filed are very small. In my 3 years, I've never seen property seized without an arrest. However I have seen MANY guys come through with a couple grand in cash and it was NOT seized. When I worked in the jail I personally did an intake on a guy that had $8,000 in cash but he had a couple texts showing he was meeting somebody to buy a car so he kept it despite being arrested.
 
TechLarry said:
This whole cops stealing money, apparently legally and without check, confuses the hell out of me. I just don't understand how this could be allowed to happen. Supposedly legally and without challenge?
Click to expand...

You were probably brought up to believe the United States is a country.

It isn't.

It is a tax farm.
 
Carrying a large amount of cash is NOT probable cause. There are plenty of people who do that for legitimate reasons. particularly small business and farm owners. Civil asset forfeiture is evil. People handed that power to the government for dubious reasons, at best, and they have continued to abuse it in more and more creative ways. What was originally intended to slow down the drug trade and terrorism is now consistently being used against innocent people.
 
The pretense is wrong. We did not delegate that right to the government. A small subset of voters did. But they did not have the right to delegate that away to begin with, as it never was a right they themselves held at any time.

In other words, its a completely illegitimate action from a completely illegitimate government.
 
MacLeod said:
I'd have no problem with this. I'd be totally fine with them changing it to nothing can be seized if there are no charges. That's more than fair to me. I'm all for ways to make this law more fair with more reasonable safeguards. What I'm doing here is defending against the idea that cops are just using this law to just go door to door and take people's shit or because 1 cop used this as an excuse to rip somebody off we need to shitcan the whole thing plus trying to add some context and explain how law enforcement uses this. Me personally, I would never seize somebody's shit without also charging them with a related crime and I maintain that is what happens the vast vast vast majority of the time. I don't have actual numbers but I'd bet the percentage of seized property without charges being filed are very small. In my 3 years, I've never seen property seized without an arrest. However I have seen MANY guys come through with a couple grand in cash and it was NOT seized. When I worked in the jail I personally did an intake on a guy that had $8,000 in cash but he had a couple texts showing he was meeting somebody to buy a car so he kept it despite being arrested.
Click to expand...
Forfeiture related to criminal convictions already exists and has existed for a very long time as criminal asset forfeiture, where you go through due process to lose your assets. Sounds like as far as you're concerned we could get rid of civil asset forfeiture and it wouldn't change how you operate in any significant way, it would just stop all those shady departments out there that are literally highway robbers from operating their criminal enterprise under color of law.
 
-Dragon- said:
Forfeiture related to criminal convictions already exists and has existed for a very long time as criminal asset forfeiture, where you go through due process to lose your assets. Sounds like as far as you're concerned we could get rid of civil asset forfeiture and it wouldn't change how you operate in any significant way, it would just stop all those shady departments out there that are literally highway robbers from operating their criminal enterprise under color of law.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't affect how I operate but remember, I'm just a grunt road cop with only a few years experience. The detectives that work these big drug cases could have a different take that I'm not aware of. I'm not for shitcanning the whole thing but maybe there is a way to make the process much more fair. If I seize $15,000 from you, it shouldn't take years and cost you money before you get in front of a judge. But yeah, generally I'm absolutely open to ways to make the process more fair and to ensure law abiding folks don't lose their property without legal justification.
 
MacLeod: Sounds like you are just a pawn in the grand scheme of things. You sound like a good person at heart with no ill will towards others. I don't think most of the guys here are attacking you. But from what we've read and seen in the news, what you say you do is not what actually happens in reality.

I do hope you never fall into doing what the "bad" cops do. Keep up the good work and keep your honor.
 
Never agree to a search period. Doing so is just plain stupid.

Also limit your interaction with the police - you are under no obligation to answer most questions. In some states you arent even required to provide identification unless operating a motor vehicle. Know your states laws!

This is a very good resource:
 
MacLeod said:
Oh for fuck sake. Another [H]yped up anti-cop story.
Click to expand...
Steve said:
We are anti-cop? Since when!?!?

I know there have been a lot of recent "the cops / feds / government are doing this" stories but that is just reporting the news when it is tech related.

No one supports our police and armed forces more than we do. :(
Click to expand...

I don't quite think this is anti-cop either. I think it's anti-government intrusion. I don't really get mad at the cops about stuff like this - they are just doing their jobs. This policy is not made by boots on the ground cops. I have never had a bad experience with a beat cop. They have always been fair to me. I have always been polite and respectful though.
 
MacLeod said:
It wouldn't affect how I operate but remember, I'm just a grunt road cop with only a few years experience. The detectives that work these big drug cases could have a different take that I'm not aware of. I'm not for shitcanning the whole thing but maybe there is a way to make the process much more fair. If I seize $15,000 from you, it shouldn't take years and cost you money before you get in front of a judge. But yeah, generally I'm absolutely open to ways to make the process more fair and to ensure law abiding folks don't lose their property without legal justification.
Click to expand...
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that someones property is some kind of separate non-human entity without rights that can be freely seized and held indefinitely until proven innocent in a court, generally a court that has a stake in keeping said property, is what is bullshit. Civil asset forfeiture is all about assuming property has been involved in a crime and is guilty until proven innocent, and that by not arresting the owner you're not depriving them of their rights because "it's just stuff" regardless of how much they might need their stuff in order to be able to live a free life or how much time, money, and inconvenience to them it requires for them to get it back.

You like to give hypotheticals how about I give you one? Some guy has been on meth and been in trouble with the law, in and out of jail, finally decides to get his life together and quits cold turkey, goes to his family for help, but is still massively underweight. He's driving along, maybe a bit fast, you pull him over and find he has $10,000 cash on him. He swears that it's money from his dad's business that he's taking to the bank, but he's acting a bit jumpy, maybe still going through withdraws due to recently quitting, and while you find no direct evidence of drug use or dealing you decide that due to his behavior, large amount of cash, looks, and past record that there is reasonable suspicion that this money is related to drugs so under civil asset forfeiture you confiscate the money and his car as is permitted by law but have nothing to arrest him on personally so you let him go. The trial date eventually comes around and the "perp" is nowhere to be found but his family is claiming the car and the money is theirs with receipts and title to prove it showing clearly that the money and vehicle had no connection to drugs or crime. The judge declares that while you did have reasonable suspicion that the property may have been drug related you were just incorrect and while you're absolved of any wrong doing, the property is to be returned to them, except you know, all the money they paid in attorney fees, and in some jurisdictions you have to put up a bond for the property you want returned that isn't returned even if you win. You wonder why the guy you pulled over wasn't there so you ask the family as they leave, they glare at you and inform you that due to your seizure of their assets their son felt it was all his fault and relapsed, ran away from home, and had been found dead a few days later from an overdose.

So just to be clear, since you did have reasonable suspicion that it might be drug related even though there was no direct evidence tying the innocent man to any crime, since the judge agreed with your judgement you're cool with this outcome, correct?

The fact of the matter is civil forfeiture IS being abused in this country in many jurisdictions where innocent people can easily loose tens of thousands of honest hard earned dollars with little to no hope of ever seeing it returned, especially when state highway patrols specifically target out of state vehicles to make fighting any seizures that much more difficult for them, and since they're not harassing their local population the blow back politically is minimal since the target victims of what should be a crime have no say in the matter because, well, they're not from around these parts.

And now the cops can drain your bank accounts too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LazN
like this
-Dragon- said:
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that someones property is some kind of separate non-human entity without rights that can be freely seized and held indefinitely until proven innocent in a court, generally a court that has a stake in keeping said property, is what is bullshit. Civil asset forfeiture is all about assuming property has been involved in a crime and is guilty until proven innocent, and that by not arresting the owner you're not depriving them of their rights because "it's just stuff" regardless of how much they might need their stuff in order to be able to live a free life or how much time, money, and inconvenience to them it requires for them to get it back.

You like to give hypotheticals how about I give you one? Some guy has been on meth and been in trouble with the law, in and out of jail, finally decides to get his life together and quits cold turkey, goes to his family for help, but is still massively underweight. He's driving along, maybe a bit fast, you pull him over and find he has $10,000 cash on him. He swears that it's money from his dad's business that he's taking to the bank, but he's acting a bit jumpy, maybe still going through withdraws due to recently quitting, and while you find no direct evidence of drug use or dealing you decide that due to his behavior, large amount of cash, looks, and past record that there is reasonable suspicion that this money is related to drugs so under civil asset forfeiture you confiscate the money and his car as is permitted by law but have nothing to arrest him on personally so you let him go.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have enough to seize the money in that case. And I wouldn't know his criminal history.

The trial date eventually comes around and the "perp" is nowhere to be found but his family is claiming the car and the money is theirs with receipts and title to prove it showing clearly that the money and vehicle had no connection to drugs or crime. The judge declares that while you did have reasonable suspicion that the property may have been drug related you were just incorrect and while you're absolved of any wrong doing, the property is to be returned to them, except you know, all the money they paid in attorney fees, and in some jurisdictions you have to put up a bond for the property you want returned that isn't returned even if you win. You wonder why the guy you pulled over wasn't there so you ask the family as they leave, they glare at you and inform you that due to your seizure of their assets their son felt it was all his fault and relapsed, ran away from home, and had been found dead a few days later from an overdose.
Click to expand...

OK that's a little over dramatic there at the end but I agree with you and if property is seized improperly then the rightful owner shouldn't be out court costs and shit like that.

So just to be clear, since you did have reasonable suspicion that it might be drug related even though there was no direct evidence tying the innocent man to any crime, since the judge agreed with your judgement you're cool with this outcome, correct?
Click to expand...

No, because from what you're proposing, there isn't enough evidence to seize the money in the first place. In that case all I'd have to do is call the dad on the phone and ask him. He says yes his son has the deposit and he tells me the amount, well sir, have a nice day. Cops aren't that stupid and we will investigate before we start seizing things. And again these seizures without an arrest are like unicorns in their rarity.

The fact of the matter is civil forfeiture IS being abused in this country in many jurisdictions where innocent people can easily loose tens of thousands of honest hard earned dollars with little to no hope of ever seeing it returned, especially when state highway patrols specifically target out of state vehicles to make fighting any seizures that much more difficult for them, and since they're not harassing their local population the blow back politically is minimal since the target victims of what should be a crime have no say in the matter because, well, they're not from around these parts.
Click to expand...

I maintain that is super extremely rare. If honest innocent people were losing tens of thousands of dollars by bogus seizures it would be all over the news all hell would break loose. I mean would you just lay down if somebody took $10,000 from you and it was legitimately yours? The fact that it's almost a non issue also could mean that the property being seized is being seized correctly and in relation to criminal activity like selling drugs.
 
MacLeod said:
I maintain that is super extremely rare. If honest innocent people were losing tens of thousands of dollars by bogus seizures it would be all over the news all hell would break loose. I mean would you just lay down if somebody took $10,000 from you and it was legitimately yours? The fact that it's almost a non issue also could mean that the property being seized is being seized correctly and in relation to criminal activity like selling drugs.
Click to expand...
Google

Seriously? Do you not even pay attention to news? They're working on a bill in California of all places right now to try to end all the CAF abuse out there!

Forfeiture Reform Advances in the Senate
 
  • Like
Reactions: LazN
like this
MacLeod said:
Oh for fuck sake. Another [H]yped up anti-cop story. Cops are not going to be pulling you over, taking your wallet and stealing the money off your Best Buy gift card. This is for when cops stop somebody and they've got 50 pre paid cards wrapped in a rubber band hidden under the seat and have no excuse or receipt for it. Even without these scanners cops can still confiscate a batch of cards like that with enough probable cause. A large amount of cash by itself is NOT justification for seizing it.

And stop acting like we're taking this money then hitting the strip clubs with it. It's counted, recorded, reviewed by my boss, his boss and then his boss then locked up in evidence. There it sits until it goes in front of a judge and he decides the disposition of it. If you've got 15,000 cash stuffed in the console of your 84 Nissan Sentara and can't give me a reason for it I can seize it. But then I have to go before a judge and I am the one that has to prove that I had probable cause to seize the money. If I'm wrong you get the money back and I can possibly be open to a lawsuit if I'm guilty of outright misconduct like racial profiling or something like that.

Stop acting like there is no judicial review of these cases. They ALL go before a judge and will in the case of these scanners. They will still have to go in front of a judge and prove to him they had legal justification for seizing your 50 pre-paid cards. If they can't you're getting your money back and you might wind up with some extra cash from a settlement.
Click to expand...

1) Yes, actually there are many cases where a large amount of cash is the only reason provided for justifying seizing it. You have too much cash, you must be planning something illegal. Lets steal it from you. There are a shit ton of cases where this is exactly what happens. YOU are sao blinbd to it, you attach that rationale to the end of a sentence where you describe that this process is for the guy with 50 gift cards under their seat. Not a guy with 50 gift cards and a bunch of drugs, or something else illegal, just a bunch of gift cards. Which the cops want ot treat like a cash equivalent. SO basically, this is only for people with a big pile of cash equivalent on them. But a large amount of money isn't itself justification. You are a fucking hypocrite AND an idiot. Normally Iwould refrain form direct insults, but the shit you typed is about as insulting to everyone else as that. Unless it was a deliberate troll, then 10/10 well done.

2) Actually, no, the assets don't jsut sit there. They wind up being part of the law enforcement budgets and go back into your pocket unless the rightful owner of those assets can prove the assets are not involved in criminal activity. SO yeah, you ARE effectively hitting the strip club with it once you cash your paycheck.

3) They go before judges who don't give a shit and rubber stamp stuff. Maybe you work someplace where this isn't abused badly, but it get abused badly.
 
Not touching the scenarios for "is civil forfeiture right in the first place" part of this discussion. However, the machine may offer benefit to the accused by limiting the number of hands handling your cards. (chain of custody?) I wouldn't be shocked to find stories of people starting with 8 gift cards and only receiving 5 at the end of the process.
The money flowing back to the company doesn't pass the sniff test and should be looked at closer though. It creates a scaling incentive for a group similar to red light cameras.
 
MacLeod said:
I maintain that is super extremely rare. If honest innocent people were losing tens of thousands of dollars by bogus seizures it would be all over the news all hell would break loose. I mean would you just lay down if somebody took $10,000 from you and it was legitimately yours? The fact that it's almost a non issue also could mean that the property being seized is being seized correctly and in relation to criminal activity like selling drugs.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
tjqkvxE.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top