101–110 of 200 posts
At this point, is it worth it to turn it into a criminal case where you fight them for the cash? They're trying to keep the cash inside of civil rules. what happens if you physically refuse to let them have your items? Because they're yours and you believe they're attempting to steal from you?
Probably a really fast way to get yourself added to the no-fly list.
Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport forfeitures: https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work. (Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend whom I admire greatly.)
As if stealing your money wasn't bad enough, often a little is skimmed off the top if they are forced to return it.[0] [0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agent...
Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport forfeitures: https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work. (Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend whom I admire greatly.)
It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.
The entire idea of 'in rem' actions is absurd on the face of it, and is the kind of nonsense that causes people to lose faith in the justice system. There are often comments here that (correctly) castigate software engineer types as having too much of a game-playing 'gotcha' sense of how the law works - or ought to work - but "Department of Justice vs. $137,425 in US Currency" is exactly the same kind of too-tricky-by-half game-playing, only by the lawmakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Because the other side of the aisle will crap on you for doing it, and why burn political capital on a minor problem, when you have more pressing issues, like waging a war, digging through fallout of the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, getting a crappy single-payer healthcare system through, filling three supreme court s…
Constituents ABSOLUTELY care about these things and other very important issues. The problem is, nobody cares about these things MORE than "stopping abortion", "muh guns", "fuck taxes", "status quo" that most incumbents scream about. We have a two party system that discourages caring about anything.
Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this is still a colossally stupid way to make a transaction. A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home, and the list goes on. Has this guy ever h…
However, there are valid reasons people -- including criminals -- still use cash.
I traveled with like $20k cash arriving from aboard via LAX. Declared in paper that I have those money and verbally when asked upon entry, then had to go with an officer to fill out some additional form, that’s it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the most common reaction is going to be "this guy carried my mortgage worth in cash on his person to the airport, I don't think I'm going to have that problem".
Until the time they go buy a $5000 used car. Also, it's not just cash they go after. There are plenty of "State v. Diamond Necklace" or "State v. Various Electronics Valued at Approx. $1000" cases out there.
Who buys a car with cash, except for trashy/unscrupulous people? In my adult life I've never bought a used car with cash, usually it's cashiers check or wire transfer or more recently ACH after funds in my account were verified.
While it's undoubtedly an overreach to just seize all large sums of money that pass through an airport, there's zero doubt in my mind that anyone doing it is doing so for good reason. The 'victim' in this case is almost certainly involved in drug or human trafficking.
There's a joke in Cuba: Two women argue about who has the better boyfriend. The one says proudly: "Mine works as a luggage-handler at the airport!" To which the other replies ashamed: "Mine's just a doctor..." With that in mind I wonder whether it is TSA policy to always have these officers cross-sworn in with the FBI, or if it's a legal loophole which officers can exploit? From the tweet-thread it looks like local p…