Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 186 posts

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

#141

Post by sobkas »

yason wrote: post #80

While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply questionable——as opposed to taking the property temporarily unless proven guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with t…

>the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that.

So stupidity is now a crime? Because he wasn't charged with for a or b.

>losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with the money in it or being robbed

Police took his money because they believed they can get away with it(pothead like him would be to afraid to do anything about it), so just because it is legal, it doesn't suddenly make it not a robbery.

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

#143

Post by sobkas »

x0ra wrote: post #109
readme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

... but technically, weed is still a schedule 1 drug, so he is a criminal.

> ... but technically, weed is still a schedule 1 drug, so he is a criminal.

So instead of charging him with any crimes, they just took his money? All the fun, without the need for that pesky innocent until proven guilty stuff? Nice.

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

#144

Post by teddyh »

blazespin wrote: post #128

Anonymous cash, like bitcoins, is a dangerous thing and facilitates illegal activities. The government should subsidize accounts and account fees for poor people.

…says “blazespin”, making an anonymous comment.

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

#145

Post by happyscrappy »

cryoshon wrote: post #112
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?

Yeah, and it's hard to get citizenship!

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

#146

Post by nickff »

stretchwithme wrote: post #134
nickff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being convicted. The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The Supreme Court also sometim…

Can't you just get it from the estate? Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property rights of individuals without due process.

Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following the will?

It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.

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

#147

Post by nickpsecurity »

selimthegrim wrote: post #57
csense wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government and businesses have slowly but surely been eroding the role of cash in our lives. Most people use checks or credit cards for big purchases. Most people are paid by check, and the exceptions are usually near minimum wage. Nobody does big transactions in cash anymore -- even if you want to pay tens or hundreds of thousands in cash for a car, a house, or college tuition, if you show up with a brie…

I mean I think you're also ignoring security. Here in New Orleans, many cash only businesses are more liable to be robbed.

That's true. Whereas people using checks or plastic are more likely to get robbed by banks themselves, crooks remotely for larger amounts, or have assets frozen/seized by government. Storing cash in hidden, well-protected locations while keeping smaller amounts on hand protects against the most risks.

Far as cash-only business risk, there's protections for that, too, that are pretty effective. The range from drop boxes to time-lock safes to our 2nd amendment security solution. One gets to choose his or her risk level with minimal, external influence with cash.

And then there's the darned civil forfeiture laws...

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

#148

Post by nickpsecurity »

cryoshon wrote: post #112
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?

Whether it makes it or not, I can accept speech/press protection + Internet as worthwhile results of the experiment that is the U.S.. Long as they stay around and get more uptake that is.

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

#149

Post by pandaman »

jMyles wrote: post #136
ghshephard wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide a citation for that?

Radley Balko writes that he learned this from Gene Papet, a professional trainer of K9 unit dogs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-con...

The article you have referred talks about numerous cases where dogs actually detect remaining odors and then alleges that dogs could be trained to ignore weak odors.
Post reply on HN