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

161–170 of 200 posts

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

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

klyrs wrote: post #158
q1w2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.

It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in…

> And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice

You don't generally have to “prove your innocence”, the burden of proof in federal forfeiture is on the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 USC § 983(c)

The only case where you would have to prove your innocence is for the “innocent owner” affirmative defense that applies only after the government has met that burden; that is, where the government proves then seized property was, e.g., used in crime, but you assert that as the owner, you were either unaware of the use of the property in the crime or did everything reasonable to stop it being used in crime once you became aware. 18 USC § 983(d). It obviously isn’t an issue when the theory of forfeiture charged and proven by the government is your crime.

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

#162

Post by xboxnolifes »

effingwewt wrote: post #111
gred wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It certainly shows failings in our elected representatives, but everything IJ does is through the legal system. It succeeding shows the government hasn't completely failed.

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

#163

Post by thatcat »

q1w2 wrote: post #135
hapless wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary pr…

> "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not…

>to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime

No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation

>then it's literally LEGAL

Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.

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

#164

Post by tshaddox »

gamblor956 wrote: post #40
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…

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…

I mean isn’t everything in the “civil legal system”?

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

#165

Post by kelnos »

Maursault wrote: post #151
kelnos wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... still pretty terrible. Let me see if I have this right. A man and woman marry. The woman cheats on the man and gets pregnant, but lies about it and passes the kid off as the husband's child. After the birth, husband is suspicious, gets a paternity test, finds out he's not the father, and divorces the mother. And yet the now-ex-husband is still required to pay for child support? If that's a thing that happen…

Yes, divorce based on infidelity of the female due to non-paternity is terrible. If she was just sleeping around, maybe he'd have a point, but if procreation is her goal, then she is merely exercising her evolutionary imperative to ensure genetic diversity and quality of her offspring; having higher-quality offspring could theoretically give her more and healthier grandchildren later. I don't see how non-paternity is…

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but I think you're pretty out of touch with how most people would react, and they're not "mentally ill".

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

#166

Post by foerbert »

q1w2 wrote: post #118
hapless wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

One other aspect is that it's often not even fiscally reasonable to attempt to get the cash back. The costs of an attorney to take the case often outweigh the value of the cash seized. This means many times the only options are to give up on the cash, or try to do it yourself. Doing it yourself means even more time investment, and a lower expected return.

There is no way this isn't a significant factor in how many people leave the seizure uncontested. I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything uncontested is drug money.

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

#167

Post by zepto »

mywittyname wrote: post #47
zepto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does nobody want to touch it? That is what is a mystery to me.

The police unions in this country are powerful. A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly, or indirectly by financing "team building exercises" at a Build Your Own AK Ranch or some shit. The prosecutors offices get their cut too, so they have an incentive to keep their mouths shut. Everyone else can be bullied into submission.

> A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly…

Is this documented somewhere?

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

#170

Post by MichaelZuo »

godelski wrote: post #128
version_five wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think the…

> Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. I would definitely call this emergence[0]. For example the IRS has been known to push more against poor people than rich people because it is simply easier. That isn't IRS officials taking the stance "fuck poor people" but rather that it is extremely frustrating to go a…

It’s not at all clear that it’s more frustrating per dollar recoverable, for the IRS. It may be that agents aren’t evaluated on a total dollars recovered basis but a number of case closed basis. Which would directly explain why going after easily provable cases makes sense.
Post reply on HN