This sounds like the beginning of a modern day Robin Hood movie.
Robin Hood did not steal from the poor, if I remember correctly.
How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
41–50 of 455 posts
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#42While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…
Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#43Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.
It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof.
The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place.
But you do get the due process after the fact.
Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money.
There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#44It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.
This. And while the USA purports to be the leaders in freedom, we see similar erosion of freedom and liberty in other Socialist/Democratic societies like Australia, UK and France.
The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing.
People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back.
"Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#45While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…
You could imagine reading it this way: DEA agents confronted the only black man in the train car and demanded he open his bags, shook him down, and stole his cash. In a brazen theft which DEA agents later claimed was legal under the veil of "civil forfeiture" the state prosecutor has refused to press charges, and the judge on the case has refused to provide relief for the plaintiff...
I hope we continue to see a relentless stream of articles highlighting these cases one after another until finally the outcry builds loud enough for something substantive to be done at the federal level. It's to the point where we need an 'Audit the Fed' level response to scrutinize every dollar seized, and victims should be compensated in full, with interest.
I wonder how the story would have gone differently if the man had refused to consent to the search. Probably not much better, heck, that would probably be considered 'evidence' against his money.
I also wonder what the burden of proof is for showing the source of the funds. If you walk into court with bank statements and W-2s, why is it so hard to get the money back? Judges are obstructing this for some reason, and I think that's an angle to the story we haven't seen much reported.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…
Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
> Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term.
It is both.
> calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.
Taxation today is theft.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#47I 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 shou…
I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system.
In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#48Solution: bitcoin.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#49"You make it, we'll take it."
Thugs.
Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime
#50I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash seizure operations. After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."' Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to use a search ref…
By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate from its owner. This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is evidence. (which it usually isn't.) That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal judges who are signing these warrants. In my case (I had some a…
> ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in his court.
I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?