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

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#21

Post by MCRed »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #18
ekianjo wrote: post #3

The important bit: > he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black person on that part of the train.

The key part for me is right here - "A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why." Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for…

Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW) belongs in jail for a long time.

What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#23

Post by PebblesHD »

MCRed wrote: post #9

I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..." I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then. This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim…

Thats horrifying. Please, if you haven't already, publish this somewhere. This is something that needs to be shared.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#24

Post by aftbit »

One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash.

However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#25

Post by notdiminoten »

andrewchambers wrote: post #22

It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.

Where else in the world could WBC and the KKK exist?

Just look at how the neo Nazis are treated in Germany.

The US fucks it up royally and regularly, but in different ways from the rest of the world.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#27

Post by steve19 »

I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly)....

... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case.

People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry confiscated.

Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned should be pretty simple. Print out a bank statement (he said he withdrew it from an out of state bank) and take it to the nearest DEA (or US Marshal?) office.

On the other hand, if he could not furnish a bank statement, has a history of drug dealing or other criminal activity I would be no more outraged than when a local drug dealer has his car confiscated. (Although I would still be against the law in principle)

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#28

Post by superuser2 »

masterleep wrote: post #2

Of course, this is unlawful, but that doesn't really seem to stop the government these days.

Civil forfeiture is entirely within the legal system, provided for by democratically appointed laws, upheld time and time again by judges. There is no twist of language that makes this "unlawful." Civil forfeiture is a facet of law.

As such, it is also subject to being eliminated by legislatures. As the article mentions, New Mexico did this. That this has not happened at the federal level is in fact not an indication of a misbehaving executive branch. It is an indication that Congressman do not find the issue relevant to their reelection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#29

Post by simoncion »

MCRed wrote: post #11
mr_luc wrote: post #5

I'm sure that this is a valued asset in the fight against crime ... ... but as this story illustrates, it's so shockingly immoral as to constitute robbery. Shut it down.

I'm not aware of any instances where it was used to fight crime. Seriously, not one.

shrug Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes.

I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot agree that forfeiture has never been used to fight crime. Much like it's pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet has swept up evidence of at least one credible terror plot[0], it's pretty clear that at least one instance of forfeiture use was in the service of crime elimination or punishment.

[0] Before you downvote, understand my stance. The NSA dragnet is reprehensible and clearly dangerous to the integrity of the Republic. However, the dragnet is so wide that it can't help but catch some of what the NSA is looking for. See what I'm getting at?

Post reply on HN