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

91–100 of 212 posts

Re: Stop and Seize

#91

Post by agwa »

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…

Almost everything involving a bank costs money. Checking accounts have both monthly fees and overdraft fees. Check books cost money. If you're well-off, as virtually all HN commenters are, the fees aren't a big deal or they're waived entirely. If you're poor, as virtually all the victims of roadside asset forfeiture are, the fees are significant so you just don't use banks. That means you end up having to carry large amounts of cash.

Now, you prefixed your comment with "This is by no means a justification" so this isn't directed at you, but one of the reasons the criminal justice system is so messed up is because people in a position of power (judges, prosecutors, but also voters) don't realize what it's like to be poor, so when a poor person does something that they wouldn't do (like carrying large sums of cash), they assume it's either suspicious, or if not suspicious, foolish, so the poor person deserves what he/she gets. A bit of empathy could go a long way here.

Re: Stop and Seize

#92

Post by tbrownaw »

clamprecht wrote: post #76
shin_lao wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal for the seller to accept cash beyond 3,000 € (see the law above). Important point: checks and wire transfers are free.

You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe. It's especially convenient when the seller only accepts cash, since a non-cash transaction would be impossible. I have no problem with France's law against cash (since I'm not a French resident). France also doesn't have freedom of the press, and I'm ok with that.

You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find it convenient and safe.

If it's generally known that nobody carries large amounts of cash, I imagine it might make muggings a bit less common.

It's not so much you personally carrying lots of cash that's safe or unsafe, it's what fraction of the population carries lots of cash that makes things safe or unsafe.

Re: Stop and Seize

#93

Post by shawn-furyan »

kohanz wrote: post #77
jjoonathan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I certainly don't read it in that way. Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft). The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?

> For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?

When it's all you have, and already allocated to an expense that's necessary in one way or another. The fact that cash is in paper form, and not electronic form doesn't imply that it's from the discretionary part of your budget.

Also, there is the phenomenon of people with low incomes opting out of the banking system for various reasons including distrust of it.

[edit: 11:24AM CDT added second paragraph]

Re: Stop and Seize

#94

Post by yutah »

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.

In France, don't you have to buy your matches from the government? (because you have too many laws, not everybody should)

Also, according to the video, I don't know what the lower limit is but they seized $2,500 from someone (less then 2000 euros at current rates).

Re: Stop and Seize

#95

Post by bluedino »

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.

In the USA, withdrawing $10,000 in a single day requires a form from the IRS

Re: Stop and Seize

#96

Post by spiritplumber »

clamprecht wrote: post #68
shin_lao wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on every dollar(s) bill in circulation should settle the argument. Cash should always be an option. It's the law. If that law is invalid, how can I know that the law that says "don't pay for more than X in cash" is valid?

Re: Stop and Seize

#97

Post by markkanof »

psykovsky wrote: post #73
lettergram wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging from the 5 or 6 cops I know personally (neighbors and what not), there's basically nothing you can do if they want something from you. They will lie or provoke you into doing something, even worse, one of the cops I know had a story about how someone said, "no, you cannot search my vehicle." The cop then asked if he wanted to be arrested for resisting arrest, and the guy gave in because he has no idea what hi…

Aren't you ashamed to have such aquaintances? I would punch the guy in the face as soon as he shared tat story with me. EDIT: Don't you think you should at least call him out on such unacceptable behaviour?

And then you would likely serve jail time for assaulting an officer. This is the exact problem with the system as it currently works. There is a significant imbalance of power that allows police to go on power trips with no real way to stop them.

Re: Stop and Seize

#98

Post by spiritplumber »

zorrb wrote: post #16
edw519 wrote: post #8

He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant... They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. ...was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction... The deputy found $75,195 in a suitcase in the back seat... They were carrying $28,500 in church funds meant for the purchase of land... No doubt there's injustice that needs to b…

Oh, I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the USA here. Just because, YOU, in the 5minutes it took you to post a knee-jerk reaction can't think of ANY reason to carry large sums of money doesn't mean it should be or IS illegal. It's not. This is a free country and there are many reasons one might want or need to carry cash. This whole preposterous idea that, "Oh, you have lots of money on you MUST BE DRUG MONEY.…

Mandate interest, and the road becomes a lot shorter.

Re: Stop and Seize

#99

Post by psykovsky »

markkanof wrote: post #97
psykovsky wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you ashamed to have such aquaintances? I would punch the guy in the face as soon as he shared tat story with me. EDIT: Don't you think you should at least call him out on such unacceptable behaviour?

And then you would likely serve jail time for assaulting an officer. This is the exact problem with the system as it currently works. There is a significant imbalance of power that allows police to go on power trips with no real way to stop them.

And I would also have my opportunity to explain to a judge and/or jury why I punched him in the face...
Post reply on HN