What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?
Ask if you're under arrest. If not, you must be free you go.
Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
71–80 of 94 posts
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
I've never heard of this case, can you explain what it implies?
"In every state of the United States, and in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Canada, when you call the police, dial 911, and rely on the police to protect you, you are taking a big risk. Under the laws of most of these jurisdictions, the police do not have to respond. They do not have to protect you"
Also: "Carrying out the duties of a police or fire department are frequently classified as 'governmental' or 'discretionary'. Under the statutes and case decisions in most states, citizens cannot sue the government for negligently performing (or failing to perform) a 'governmental' or 'discretionary' function."
Plus: "The general rule is that governmental entities owe a duty to provide police protection to the public, but not to protect any particular individual"
source: Dial 911 and Die, by Richard W. Stevens
P.S. I apologize I provide a single source, but I personally haven't read too much on this topic, other than the book cited.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden is actually still on the government, but it's a lower burden than criminal cases.
What burden? The burden is on the owner, because he has all his assets being seized, making it much harder to defend himself now. That should never happen - certainly not in a "innocent until proven guilty" system (if that's still the case).
Burden of proof. What the hell else could someone mean when talking about a legal dispute?
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#74In Phoenix, Arizona if you are arrested they will automatically impound any and all $100 bills. You have to go to the police impound station to get them back. You can have several hundred in $20's though and they will hold it at the county jail (where Detention Officers have been caught stealing from the cash safe) and give it back when you're released. I never really understood why.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#75What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?
You should never answer such a question from a police officer. You should respectfully decline to answer.
You should also not listen to me, though I think you'll find the ACLU provides the same advice.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#76The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
A big part of the problem is that they have rationally come to the conclusion that there will be no consequences for their actions. If they had any kind of fear that they could realistically get in trouble, almost all of the problem would go away.
The problem is operant conditioning[1]. We have created a situation where an action that probably should have gotten most people fired (or worse) is generally ignored (or earns you a paid vacation), and that there is some sort of personal benefit (e.g. margarita machines[2]). We have effectively created a Skinner Box that teaches people that they are above the law. I would expect that most people would eventually be conditioned into socially harmful behaviors if they were placed in a similar situation.
None of this behavior will change until we reintroduce some level of fear-of-consequences. Start actually prosecuting misconduct - even the little things - and a lot[3] of the bad behavior will self-correct.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
[2] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/john-oliver-civil-forfeit...
[3] not all, of course, but it would certainly be a good start
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
What burden? The burden is on the owner, because he has all his assets being seized, making it much harder to defend himself now. That should never happen - certainly not in a "innocent until proven guilty" system (if that's still the case).
Burden of proof. What the hell else could someone mean when talking about a legal dispute?
I think rhino369's point is that, whatever procedural arrangement might characterize the discourse, the actual burden of proof is on the owner - if they take action and prove their case, they get their possessions back. Until that time, the possessions are in the custody of the state.
Furthermore, I don't think it's true (at least not per the article) that a civil forfeiture proceeding puts a burden of proof on the state - it seems to be that the owner has an opportunity to petition for appeal, which if not taken, amounts to a forfeit by default.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#78The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?
I think that it happened (can't find the link) because up to some point, the departments didn't get any money from forfeitures - when this changed, forfeitures exploded.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#79My only question here is that how this does not violate constitutional rights of citizens for possessing property and having a due process of law? Why Supreme Court has upheld these laws all these years? Wikipedia has good article on civil forfeiture[1] but fails to answer this question. All I can discern from there is that these laws were created 200 years ago to seize ships of owners who can't be prosecuted easily. Apparently supreme court has distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. For the former, due process by a judge is required while for former it's not because a property gets charged for participating in crime instead of a person. This sounds more dumber than "corporation is a person" thing that they rules before. Who is supposed to protect the intent of constitution now?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#80The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
A big part of the problem is that they have rationally come to the conclusion that there will be no consequences for their actions. If they had any kind of fear that they could realistically get in trouble, almost all of the problem would go away. The problem is operant conditioning[1]. We have created a situation where an action that probably should have gotten most people fired (or worse) is generally ignored (or e…
> most people would eventually be conditioned into socially harmful behaviors if they were placed in a similar situation.
I think all people is a fair assessment.
Also, there seems to be an incredible amount of mental illness among law enforcement, prison staff, and prosecutorial staff. I listened to all eight audio clips this morning[1], and the gentlemen speaking both seemed to be incredible paranoid, with an "us vs them" mentality about property seizures. They were giggling throughout as if they were happy, but they seemed very paranoid; even delusional.
I also watched the clip that made the rounds on reddit today of the police officer pulling over the ambulance. He's obviously, clearly not well. Something is very wrong in this man's life and he needs help.
Finally, the guards at Dade Correctional obviously have incredible demons - truly psychotic behavior[3]. From the article:
---
Joiner thought he pretty much had seen it all, from guards nearly starving prisoners to death, to taunting and beating them unconscious while handcuffed for sport. He recalls one inmate was paid a pack of cigarettes to attack one sick inmate whose only offense was to ask if their mail could be delivered before bedtime.
But Joiner, a 46-year-old convicted killer, saw something that morning that shook even him to his core.
On the floor of a small shower stall he was ordered to clean, he saw a single blue canvas shoe and what he later realized was large chunks of human skin.
The skin belonged to Darren Rainey, a 50-year-old mentally-ill prisoner whom the guards had handcuffed and locked in the cell the night before. Witnesses and DOC reports indicate Rainey was left in the scalding hot water for hours, allegedly as punishment for defecating in his cell.
Joiner, in an interview with the Miami Herald on Tuesday at Columbia Correctional Institution in Lake City, said he could hear Rainey screaming as hot steam filled the unit that night. He also heard the guards taunting Rainey, saying “How do you like your shower?’’
---
It's incredible that we as a society don't manage to provide for the mental health even of our own state officials. These people seem like some of the most poorly adjusted people I've ever heard about.
[1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicks29/aif-in-doubtatake-ita-behind...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SMpAHJkhm0&feature=youtu.be
[3] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/a...