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

TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#111

Post by effingwewt »

gred wrote: post #104
joncrane wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.

Really? Why should we not organize to fight for causes that we believe in? Would you be happy delegating your moral compass to the U.S. Department of Do-Goodery?

He is saying it's the government's job to do those things so we don't have to.

The fact that we have a failed government is not something we should all just bend over and accept as status quo

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#112

Post by chickenpotpie »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #39
darthvoldemort wrote: post #28

No one has explained to me how this is still legal. This "law" has persisted until Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Can no one mount a legal challenge against this?

Because once these things are in place they’re there forever. The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted. Remember the patriot act when the next round of powers come in because of covid.

“ The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted.”

Completely false, there are countless instances of government giving up a power it previously had. Previous presidential administration rolled back environmental regulations, Covid regulations across the country have greatly lightened up since last year, there’s no draft going on right now…

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#113

Post by function_seven »

drenvuk wrote: post #65

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?

The cash would remain within the civil rules, and on top of that you'd catch a charge and a criminal case. Even if you beat that rap, you're still back where you started with respect to the money.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#114

Post by treeman79 »

aazaa wrote: post #27

> Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned. He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly with in the U.S. Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. It's outside the legal system, which is why it's nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality of what Lyon was doing…

If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc.

Welfare office Argument being is that someone should pay for the kid.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

treeman79 wrote: post #114
aazaa wrote: post #27

> Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned. He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly with in the U.S. Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. It's outside the legal system, which is why it's nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality of what Lyon was doing…

If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc. Welfare office Argument being is that someone should pay for the kid.

> If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc.

“Some places”? Really, which exactly? The only case I am aware of in any US jurisdiction where child support is required even in the face of proof of biological non-paternity is for children born in wedlock (sometimes with other requirements, such as marital cohabitation) in states where the marital presumption of paternity is conclusive (or conclusive when other requirements are met) rather than merely presumptive. And in that case it is literally what you legally signed up for.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#116

Post by decebalus1 »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #90

"Flying with cash is legal". No, it clearly isn't. The law says that a government employee can take your money as long as they write some words on a bit of paper, and if any of that money ever came in to contact with any drug (which are legal in many states), or for many other reasons, then they can keep it forever. Claiming it is legal is just a way to get more clients.

It's legal for a person to fly with cash, but not for the cash itself. That's the core of civil forfeiture. The person is not being charged with any crimes, the money is 'detained' for investigation.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#117

Post by ncmncm »

hapless wrote: post #99
gamblor956 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong . CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs…

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed. Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all…

We've officially authorized law enforcement to be a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves. This is not to say they weren't already. So un-making the fact will be much harder.

Without authorization, the cop would have stolen the money anyway. The law just makes victims more resigned to it -- if the money goes regardless, the cop might just as well get it. Maybe they'll even take less, that way?

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#118

Post by q1w2 »

hapless wrote: post #99
gamblor956 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong . CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs…

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed. Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all…

> it began with an extra-legal demand

That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no investigation"

This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing the money personally. This likely still would have been considered a seizure under asset forfeiture.

I agree that it should be entirely legal to carry around hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it looks very suspicious for someone who's been previously convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around hundreds of thousands in small bills.

Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in court prove the money was not gained through illegal means. The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial).

It's important to remember that every state is different - as is the Fed gov't.

In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost every state.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#119

Post by BiteCode_dev »

Y_Y wrote: post #103
anonAndOn wrote: post #58

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...

If you don't have a bank account and aren't in a rush to move your money you can just overpay on your taxes and make about 4% from the IRS until you claim it back at least 45 days later.

How do you make 4%?

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#120

Post by AdrianB1 »

dangus wrote: post #42

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…

Most of Germans would disagree with you, they use a lot of cash and avoid cards, at least the older generations.

If you think someone is a criminal, prove it first; without that, shut up.

Post reply on HN