Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him • Hacker News Board

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#111

Post by joeax » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

readme wrote: post #72

hoffspot wrote: post #5

I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous, but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously lose? The point of the story is valid, but…

You know what man, you're absolutely right. But most people here are going to disagree with you, downvote you, and your brand new account is only going to be visible when I click "showdead" because apparently HN can't handle an opinion without hitting the down button. I would bet you so much, not a soul on HN would dream of carrying 11k in cash through an airport. It's ok though, we should make sure people have the r…

My 0.02. The fallacy in the shady argument is you're justifying a bigger wrong with the much smaller one. It's like saying "if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have worn that short skirt" (i.e. blaming the victim).

It's guys like these, that although inadvertently, when they get snarled in asset forfeiture and choose to fight the system, they slowly induce change. And that matters. This is why states like Minnesota, New Mexico, and North Carolina, with Ohio on tap, are banning the practice before conviction.

(Disclaimer: I don't downvote either. I can't downvote right now anyway, but I think it detracts from the conversation.)

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#112

Post by cryoshon » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

hmottestad wrote: post #8

Now I'm not sure if Norway has similar laws, but I haven't heard of any. However, watching John Oliver talk about how ridiculous the civil forfeiture laws are in the US just makes me want to laugh so much. I know of all the great things happening in the US, and I'm not calling you a bad country. But it's so hard not to categorise you together with North Korea, China and the United Arab Emirates with how trigger happy…

Yeah, the US is a big joke, and it sucks to have to suffer through the police state and looter healthcare system. Civil asset forfeiture is an insane rejection of our right to property. The problem is that "rights" are really more like "ideas which we must nod to and then can ignore fully" here.

Least we have startups, right?

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#113

Post by protomyth » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

readme wrote: post #86

protomyth wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vehicle we were in did have a shotgun rack, but someone mugging him was a pretty low possibility. It was a restored truck (very nice old Ford). It would have to be some stranger from out of area. Calling some dumbass's uncle for starting trouble is still a pretty effective crime solving technique in large parts of the US. [edit] where the heck do you live that muggings are commonplace?

Never said it was common, I'm just saying I don't think it's worth the privacy to expose yourself to that amount of risk. Also the gov is gonna know you bought the truck when you register it, anyway.

It wasn't about privacy, it was just buying a truck. I never said it was about privacy. Hell, the DMV knew about the truck about 40 minutes after he bought it. The seller reported it as income[1]. This had nothing to do with privacy or fraud, and his bank wouldn't let him write checks for over $5,000 and he sure wasn't going to pay some fee for a certified check that the guy selling the truck wasn't going to take anyway.

We didn't see it as a risk. It was just a bit odd to have 150 $100 bills. Puts a little weight into the cost of what you're going to buy. Good thing he bought it too as his old truck (which I drove back, that's why he brought me not as some security) needed about $3,000 in repairs. He sold it to a farmer who did the repairs himself. My friend kept the truck for about 2 decades.

1) I remember his receipt pad. It was styled like something I imagine came out of a Dickens story. He basically bought wrecks and stuff in garages and restored some or built mods out of others. Pretty good retirement gig.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#114

Post by 0xcde4c3db » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #98

davismwfl wrote: post #96

It bugs me reading some of the the comments here blaming the person that did nothing illegal by carrying cash. It doesn't matter if you (or I) feel it is inadvisable to carry cash, it isn't illegal. Smoking pot (illegal in most places) before flying is obviously not the brightest idea given the enhanced level of security at an airport. So I am ok with the "smell" prompting some extra questions (even an agreed to sear…

I'm really curious, how do you not qualify for a savings account? I've never seen a bank that wouldn't take money, especially when they can charge account maintenance fees.

In addition to the usual issues that come up with identity documents, some banks want documentation of an address of residence (e.g. a utility bill in the customer's name), which a lot of people don't have for various reasons.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#115

Post by gizi » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

It is a double problem. A rule that allows the police to seize your cash for the most flimsy of reasons only works if people are not aware of the fact that this could happen. Therefore, the next step is to outlaw discussions of the type that we are having now. Next, hosting a site that allows this kind of discussions must also be banned. Merely describing what exactly is banned, discloses the wrong kind of information, and must therefore also be banned. It is not enough to impose obnoxious rules. It will also be needed to control all information about them. The solution is to make rules a secret. That is how you get things like the FISA courts, the secret courts granting the NSA the right to do whatever they like, while anybody involved becomes subject to a gag order. Shut up, or else!

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#116

Post by reagency » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #25

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…

Please don't blame the victim. Would you like me to steal your car just because I can force it away from you?

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#117

Post by reagency » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #25

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…

Please don't blame the victim. Would you like me to steal your car just because I can force it away from you?

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#118

Post by reagency » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:37 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #41

MichaelGG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having cops steal money should not be a risk anyone is taking, let alone a stupid one. If he got mugged, that'd be another thing. Also, free alternatives? Elaborate. And certainly they aren't free from surveillance. We should encourage and treat the carrying of $$$$$ in cash as a normal thing to do.

Checking accounts. Bitcoin (not free, but close). If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence. >And certainly they aren't free from surveillance. If you want a financial system free from surveillance then you need to get the public on board with ending taxation (and consequently all public services). Good luck. And, as we…

But it wasn't a private criminal theft. The only person who stole the money was hr police. No police, no problem.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#119

Post by protomyth » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:37 PM UTC

Roboprog wrote: post #97

protomyth wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time, yeah - I paid in cash. Financial aid wouldn't free up my money unless I paid my Business Office balance. Business Office claimed I owed $200 from the summer and wouldn't clear my balance until I paid that and the tuition ($734 if I remember correctly). So I walked $934 to the business office (Business Office had the odd policy that they didn't take checks with numbers under 2000 and I didn't write a lot…

I still think carrying thousands of dollars around is foolish, but thanks for the examples of ... that's just how things have to work, sometimes.

Why is it foolish? I'm not real fond of being called a fool. I've had more problem with credit card fraud (and the lost money in fees because of it even if the original money was restored) then I ever had carrying cash. I don't honestly get this "you could be mugged" thinking. If mugging happens often enough that its a risk factor in carrying cash, then you need to think about where you are living.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#120

Post by davismwfl » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

douche wrote: post #98

davismwfl wrote: post #96

It bugs me reading some of the the comments here blaming the person that did nothing illegal by carrying cash. It doesn't matter if you (or I) feel it is inadvisable to carry cash, it isn't illegal. Smoking pot (illegal in most places) before flying is obviously not the brightest idea given the enhanced level of security at an airport. So I am ok with the "smell" prompting some extra questions (even an agreed to sear…

I'm really curious, how do you not qualify for a savings account? I've never seen a bank that wouldn't take money, especially when they can charge account maintenance fees.

There are a few checks banks make that can make it so they won't open any type of account for you.

1. Credit check, poor credit makes you a risk and they don't like it, but this can sometimes be overcome more easily then the others.

2. If you had a prior account and it was closed forcibly or your SS# still shows up in the checking system as risky. There are a few national clearing houses that track your checks to see if you are a good/bad risk for accepting checks for retailers. Those same systems banks use to determine if they will give you an account.

3. If you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty in the past, e.g. shoplifting, charged for a bad check, fraud etc.

4. If you do not have a permanent address or your address isn't a permanent residence, e.g. you live in motels day to day.

It isn't that these reasons aren't valid for banks to have concerns about you, but to totally ice you out or charge outrageous fees just because doesn't seem right to me. There are other options, like a savings account with no checks and cash withdrawal only etc.