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

Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

news9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 517 posts

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#331

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

eloisius wrote: post #320
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: pay for things you need. Over the last few decades the American people have been conned into this idea that government is fundamentally too big and needs to be shrunk because of reasons. People save a few measly percentage points on taxes that help pay for the axle damage on their car after being driven over roads that are no longer repaired. Municipalities had to find ways to recoup costs from slashed state…

So police departments are largely participating in highway robbery because it's the only way they can get by? They're not spending it on margarita machines [1] or trips to Hawaii? [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/06/05/c...

More like the municipalities in general. That's why in many parts of rural America you'll find a cop at every other speed limit change, waiting for someone to notice the sign too late, catching people who don't necessary live in the area but unwillingly contribute to the local economy.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#332

Post by wwweston »

Civil asset forfeiture needs at least these reforms:

1) Police departments cannot keep anything they seize (or proceeds from its sale/liquidation). Incentives matter. If the funds need to go somewhere, they should be assigned by lottery so they're not a solution to anyone's problems. Or, perhaps have them go to the public defender's office, which is going to need them because...

2) There absolutely has to be due process here. "Civil" is a loophole-technicality if the reason for the seizure is a suspicion that the asset was involved in a crime. PDs should be provided for those who don't have their own counsel, and burden of proof should be on the state.

(I know, sending the funds to the PDs office could create a conflict of interest. A straightforward arrangement wouldn't work; there'd have to be a likely state-level layer of indirection and some stipulations incentivizing the hiring of more staff rather than inflating existing staff salaries much beyond the current exorbitant premiums PDs command. :/ )

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#333

Post by toomuchtodo »

chiph wrote: post #287
toomuchtodo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm already spinning up a comprehensive FOIA request with MuckRock.com. Feel free to reply to my comment if anyone would like to collaborate.

Can you include something like this? "What states does ERAD currently have contracts with? With what states does ERAD anticipate contracts to be signed in the next 180 days, and for all of these states, what percentages will ERAD be earning on funds seized?"

I'd need to FOIA every police department in order to do this :/ Not scalable. I can create a template that can be used whenever its discovered which police departments are using their services.

I'm in touch with the news station that has the contract, so I should be able to get it without an additional FOIA request. Once I have that, I'll recurse further if necessary.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#337

Post by tn13 »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #319

They took a whole Christian band? Are they going to be shackled and forced to play county fairs and police fund raisers for the rest of their lives?

I think he is talking about the case where police confiscated entire charitable collection ($30k I think) of a band who were carrying it in their band-wagon. They did gave it back after the public outcry.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#338

Post by tn13 »

smellf wrote: post #334
jbigelow76 wrote: post #319

They took a whole Christian band? Are they going to be shackled and forced to play county fairs and police fund raisers for the rest of their lives?

Why is his statement so ungrammatical?

I think these people get only few seconds to make their point. They have to make it quickly while using all the right buzzwords to hit the note. Also it is a good idea to keep it low on details because they the opponents focus on the details he got wrong while conveniently avoiding the larger important point.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#339

Post by tn13 »

fapjacks wrote: post #247

This is the crux here. The "rule of law" is equivalent to "rule of men in black with automatic weapons". If you call the police, you are just outsourcing your violence to the men in black uniforms with automatic weapons. Because at the end of the day, they will use force. The "rule of law" is not "let's have a reasonable conversation about the issues".

I totally agree here. I will never call cops unless I wont mind seeing someone dragged or being pulled forcibly. Don't call cops because you saw a suspicious black man on the road, don't call cops because your neighbour's 5 year is playing alone on the playground, don't call cops because someone else is smoking weed.

Not only this will turn citizen against citizen but will also destroy lives.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#340

Post by sgnelson »

mcbits wrote: post #236
khedoros wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you do end up with amusing case names like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U... ). The currency is defined as the defendant in the case.

I feel like I'm living in the Matrix when I see things like this. There are people out there - lawyers and judges, who must be fairly smart to finish law school - who think "United States v. $124,700" makes perfect sense.

I was told when I first started graduate school that it's not about how smart one is, but rather it's about perseverance, the ability to jump through bureaucratic hoops, bite your tongue and do what you're told.

I have come to believe this since I've met some incredibly brilliant PhD's, but I've also met some incredibly dumb PhD's.

Post reply on HN