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

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#61

Post by [deleted] »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29
badsock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good? The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country i…

Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America eithe…

[deleted]

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#62

Post by imron »

entropyneur wrote: post #15
ndespres wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

> something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it Does it mean the lawmakers and higher-ups in the executive branch are not sane people?

No, it just means the priorities and incentives of their jobs are completely misaligned towards solving the problem.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#63

Post by geon »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

As George Carlin said; your rights can be taken away whenever convenient. Thus, they are not really rights at all, but temporary privileges.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#64

Post by logfromblammo »

btilly wrote: post #48
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

The legal rationale is the one for civil forfeiture. Namely they sue the possession, not you. The possession has no rights. And you have no standing in said lawsuit unless you survive an uphill battle to prove that you actually owned the possession in question. Ever tried to prove that you really own the money in your wallet?

Federal Reserve Notes are bearer instruments. If my wallet has any indication of who owns it, the presumption is that the owner of the wallet is the bearer.

If you really want to get hairy, put the cash in an unmarked envelope and put it on the front seat of a car owned by someone other than the driver. Now prove who owns it.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#65

Post by drumdance »

rayiner wrote: post #53
pjc50 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control. The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...

You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn't saying that it's a good idea to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife's interest. It was saying that Michigan's lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. A lot of decisions that seem "outrageously stupid" make more…

The right to unreasonable search and seizure at the Federal level supersedes all state law. This was just a bad Supreme Court decision, morally in the same "ballpark" as Plessy vs. Ferguson

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#67

Post by drumdance »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #57
hyperpape wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th amendment has consistently understood to allow police to search in exigent circumstances[1], and that's the right decision. If the police have good reason to believe you just robbed a store or attacked someone, they shouldn't need to get a warrant to search you. And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. The problem is that the courts h…

> And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. Yes they should. Either they are arresting you and the gun gets processed like everything else, or they aren't arresting you and thus need a warrant to seize anything from you. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you for the crime then they don't have enough evidence to seize the gun without…

What if you were just passing through and they hit you with a bullshit charge, the fine for which is "give us your gun?" That's the way these laws often work. They snag people who don't live in the area and don't have the resources to fight them in court (especially if you seize their money).

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#68

Post by 15charlimit »

Loque wrote: post #54
joshfraser wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unconstitutional, but our government stopped following that document a while ago. Just look at civil forfeiture, the NSA dragnet, journalists being sued by the Whitehouse administration, NDAA authorization to kill Americans w/o trial or the existence of Gitmo.

Unless it is to defend gun ownership? (clueless UK citizen here)

The only real reason blatantly anti-constitutional law such as blanket seizure/confiscation hasn't happened on a large scale yet (because they've sure as hell tried) is that, if such laws were passed, the powers that be would suddenly find themselves in front of an enormous number of very angry gun owners who (hopefully) would be less than willing to cooperate peacefully.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#69

Post by runako »

rayiner wrote: post #58
Jtsummers wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure of all the cases, but one of the major common factors seems to be possession of large amounts of cash. They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. It shouldn't be legal, but thanks to the drug war and post-9/11 anti-terrorism politics, it's been enabled by federal legislation and…

> They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. Think about it statistically. The standard is "more likely than not" the money is obtained illegally. If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize…

Arguments like this are why it's a good thing we don't base our criminal justice system on statistics.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is very different from "Guilty because most people in similar situations are guilty, so let's not bother to prove it in this case."

The cops would have a field day, for instance by arresting college students at random on the weekend because statistically most will test positive for controlled substances.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#70

Post by mc32 »

joshuaheard wrote: post #35
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

Didn't civil forfeiture take off as a way to counter the rise of drug monies making kingpins? If to a great degree it's true and simultaneously we're reëvaluating cannabis and society and reëxamining three strikes laws, etc., I would hope we also take a critical look at this shift in burden of proof transferred to the accused with the hope it goes back to the prosecution.
Post reply on HN