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

Stop and Seize

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 212 posts

Re: Stop and Seize

#61

Post by danschumann »

wheaties wrote: post #31

The fourth amendment, protection against unlawful search and seizure, was put into the constitution as a direct consequence of the very laws that civil forfeiture was based upon. That makes me sad. How can we, as a society, function in which we've incentivized our own police force to take property from our citizens without proof of a crime? It just doesn't make sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment…

This is a dangerous precedent that obviously does not have enough oversight if they are willing to take $2,500 moving money that a son received from his father.

Re: Stop and Seize

#62

Post by MattyRad »

I live in Reno, so with Burning Man recently I saw a disproportionate number of traffic stops off the freeway. The interesting thing about Burning Man, however, is that all vehicles are marked by the tell-tale dust from the Playa. Cops can easily identify which cars should be pulled over. I've seen cops rooting around in dust marked cars while concerned Burners watch.

I can't stress enough how important it is to know your rights [1]. Never, ever consent to a search. Never, ever "talk" to police (insofar as to assert your rights). They are not your friends. You are being pulled over because you are being accused of a crime. And all too often they will use word games and intimidation to get you to "cooperate" (forfeit your fifth amendment rights).

Even though Burners might be less likely to have large sums of money in their car (cash money is forbidden in trading at Burning Man), suspicion of drugs is a likely story for a stop and seizure.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8

Re: Stop and Seize

#63

Post by ganeumann »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #4

The local governments invariable claim it's not about the money; it's about safety or some such. I want an amendment that puts all the money from fines, seizures, etc. to the national debt. That's the closest thing to a black hole for money I can think of. Watch them scream then. Not about the money, my ass.

From the article:

'The attention prompted Congress to reform federal seizure laws in 2000, allowing owners to be reimbursed for their legal fees after successful lawsuits. But a key reform was cut. It would have removed what some lawmakers called the “perverse incentive” to target cash — the sharing of money between the feds and locals. It died after police and Justice waged a “voracious lobbying” campaign, according to former representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

“We didn’t have the votes,” said Frank, who is still an ardent critic of asset forfeiture. “There is this terrible unfairness. It is about as fundamental a denial of their constitutional rights as I can think of.”'

Re: Stop and Seize

#64

Post by jjoonathan »

kohanz wrote: post #55

This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually need to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well? Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wro…

Money orders typically have limits of a few hundred dollars, far under $18k (the example in the article). Bank-certified checks suffer from forgery problems and take 1-3 days to clear at my local bank. Both of these cost money, sometimes significant amounts of money. For instance the money order fee on $18k, assuming you structured the transaction to get around the limit, would come out to ~$150 at the place I last used (not to mention the UX is terrible and time-consuming).

Re: Stop and Seize

#65

Post by kghose »

shin_lao wrote: post #30

I don't see what the problem is. In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration. It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.

This is interesting. You given an interesting law about an European country and you get down voted. HN has become a close minded community.

You certainly added to the discussion with an interesting fact. Thank you.

http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-...

Re: Stop and Seize

#66

Post by Zigurd »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #32
zorrb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I think most reasonable people would agree the Washington Post is pretty much a joke at this point. However, I have toe vehemently disagree with your rationale. This line of thinking has to stop. Just because YOU can't think of any reason to carry "large" sums of money doesn't mean there IS no legitimate reason. Innocent until proven guilty, all that jazz. "Think about it. Why would YOU, wear sagging jeans?" Al…

Tell me a legitimate reason to carry thousands of dollars of cash around. While some, here, will think of outlier reasons and point to a few "two thousand dollar" situations, the point of the whole thing is that there are a multitude of tens and hundreds of thousands and millions in cash that ARE stopped and picked up all the time for illegal reasons and the POST (and posters here) are ignoring that fact. (Except for…

First, our system is supposed to be protective of the innocent. Carrying cash is very very far from being a violent crime or any other type of police emergency. There is never a case based on safety for confiscation.

Second, there are, for example, antique fairs where sellers are not going to take a check from random unknown buyers rom all over the country. Also, some people, notably some immigrants, of which there are a historically large number now, do not trust banks or bank instruments, or simply do not know which bank instruments would be trusted for which types of deals.

Re: Stop and Seize

#67

Post by jjoonathan »

kghose wrote: post #57
kohanz wrote: post #55

This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually need to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well? Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wro…

I share your sentiments. I'm more ambivalent about this process than I should be, as an admirer of the checks and balances in our constitution. I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought. However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust…

You realize what this sounds like to someone without access to enough cash on hand to smooth over the insanity of our banking process?

"Screw you, I've got mine."

Re: Stop and Seize

#68

Post by clamprecht »

shin_lao wrote: post #49
tehwebguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see a problem with those laws?

Absolutely not. Why would I want to pay in cash? It's neither convenient nor safe.

Are you saying because you, shin_lao, doesn't prefer cash, that it's ok for the government to go around seizing cash from people who do prefer it? What of the seller only accepts cash? What if the buyer (someone other than you) prefers cash?

Re: Stop and Seize

#69

Post by kghose »

lostcolony wrote: post #10

'“9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking for those kind of people,” said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations director of Black Asphalt. “When money is taken from an organization, it hurts them more than when they lose the drugs.”' Wait, what? I was unaware that 9/11 was perpetrated by drug trafficker…

A lot of money laundering operations is related to terrorist financing. Also, many terrorist organizations finance themselves via drug sales.

Re: Stop and Seize

#70

Post by kghose »

jjoonathan wrote: post #64
kohanz wrote: post #55

This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually need to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well? Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wro…

Money orders typically have limits of a few hundred dollars, far under $18k (the example in the article). Bank-certified checks suffer from forgery problems and take 1-3 days to clear at my local bank. Both of these cost money, sometimes significant amounts of money. For instance the money order fee on $18k, assuming you structured the transaction to get around the limit, would come out to ~$150 at the place I last u…

Why not personal check when you make the payment? Why not a credit card?
Post reply on HN