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

The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#21

Post by mapt »

jmyeet wrote: post #3

Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Worse, it should be slam-dunk unconstitutional (unreasonable search and seizure, due process) but thus far courts have done what they do most of the time: sided with law enforcement. The legal justification is so laughably bogus too ("the money has no rights"... yeah but who does that money belong to?).

I contend that every judge, politician and law enforcement officer who's ever signed off on this idea is involved in a criminal conspiracy, in every colloquial sense of the term.

The whole idea would moot the fourth amendment.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#22

Post by potato3732842 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #12
potato3732842 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General revenue is barely better. It's probably worse in many cases becase the elected part of the government can ask the thugs to seize harder to keep money coming in and then kick it back to them in the form of resource allocation or preferential treatment. That's how every speed trap town operates The only solution is to let the petty drug dealers get away with their cars and let the mob bosses get away with their…

Speed traps catch people actually committing crimes. While you as a driver may be disappointed you can't speed (read: break the law) with impunity, I as a pedestrian and public transit user would prefer more speed traps and harsher enforcement. On the other hand, what happened in the linked article appears to be the FBI seizing the women's assets with approximately zero evidence she committed a crime.

Current civil engineering best practices is that if a sufficient amount of traffic is violating the limit the limit is what's wrong. Several states use methods consistent with this to set their speed limits generally. Many do not.

Regardless, this is a distraction. Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Rules that come with force of law should not substantially deviate from what average people consider acceptable.

Furthermore, these sorts of bad laws aren't just limited to property seizure and speeding. From federal tax law to municipal zoning these is no shortage of these sorts of laws, rules with force of law and precedents that are crafted in such a manner as to give the enforcers unilateral power to take as they please and with checks limits generally only existing not to prevent abuse but to prevent the enforcers from getting so greedy that their racket gets outlawed. All examples of such laws and rules are bad and ought to be done away with.

Thank you for illustrating exactly what one of the enablers of these sorts of bad policies looks like. I will leave imagining what a similar argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture looks like as an exercise for the reader.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#23

Post by exe34 »

guappa wrote: post #19
cmeacham98 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

I've also never personally been to NYC or Antartica, thus neither of these places really exists.

when you assert that something exists, it is generally expected that you would point at documented examples. for example, consumer protection organisations, or petrol lobbies, etc might have an interest in documenting those things. do those documents exist?

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#24

Post by tsimionescu »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

> Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

Legally, of course. But there is such a thing as an artificially low speed limit. If the road conditions allow driving in safety at 60 km/h but a town installs a sign that says that you have to drive at 10 km/h, with no pedestrian traffic or bends or anything at all that could justify it, then that is a speed trap, and drivers who drive the normal speed of 60 on that stretch are not doi g anything wrong, the law is just being abused against them.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#25

Post by Fluorescence »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

The equivalent in my area are "bus gates" i.e. lanes at junctions reserved for buses during certain periods that automatically generate fines.

In principle, great, but the trick is that the signage is such an inscrutable combination of badly placed adhoc signs and road-markings that a huge number of visitors with zero intent to breach a rule get fined.

There is a common sense principle such things should meet: if the revenue from a traffic measure is high and consistent then not only has it failed in it's purpose to change behaviour but there is something bogus about it's setup.

A judge first ruled the signage was fine but after seeing so many appeals, he admitted he had been definitively proven wrong and it needed to be improved.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#26

Post by potato3732842 »

exe34 wrote: post #23
guappa wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also never personally been to NYC or Antartica, thus neither of these places really exists.

when you assert that something exists, it is generally expected that you would point at documented examples. for example, consumer protection organisations, or petrol lobbies, etc might have an interest in documenting those things. do those documents exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio#

The south catches a bad rap for speed trap towns but seems like every 10yr or so some town in the midwest abolishes its police department or something because of that sort of behavior.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#27

Post by selfsimilar »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

Here’s a Propublica article about a Louisiana town that exists financially from traffic fines.

https://www.propublica.org/article/fenton-louisiana-brought-...

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#28

Post by brabel »

potato3732842 wrote: post #22
cmeacham98 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps catch people actually committing crimes. While you as a driver may be disappointed you can't speed (read: break the law) with impunity, I as a pedestrian and public transit user would prefer more speed traps and harsher enforcement. On the other hand, what happened in the linked article appears to be the FBI seizing the women's assets with approximately zero evidence she committed a crime.

Current civil engineering best practices is that if a sufficient amount of traffic is violating the limit the limit is what's wrong. Several states use methods consistent with this to set their speed limits generally. Many do not. Regardless, this is a distraction. Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Rules that come with force of law should not substantially deviate from what average people consider accep…

> Law is the codification of acceptable behavior.

Good luck lobbying the town to change the speed limit. They don't care what you think about the limit, if you drive past that speed you'll have to pay.

And just to rant a bit: as someone who lives on a too-straight street (but very local and with pedestrians, including, children, walking on often) where dickheads constantly drive well past the limit because they probably think they know best what's "acceptable", I would love them to get hefty fines every time they did it.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#29

Post by devilbunny »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

Then it wasn’t a speed trap. Just running radar is not a speed trap, it’s enforcement.

Speed traps are as described by others: abrupt, significant changes in speed limit with minimal warning and poorly-visible signage.

Look up the story of Waldo, Florida, which for years and years did this on US 301. The town lies on the main route between Gainesville, location of the University of Florida, and Jacksonville, where it meets I-95 and thus access to points north along the East Coast. It was one of the few places that the American Automobile Association would directly call out as a speed trap.

I know that Alabama has had a series of laws starting in the 90s passed by the state legislature to rein in such activity. Not entirely successful, but not without its victories, either.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#30

Post by amiga386 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

You are being wilfully obtuse.

https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police-in-this-tiny-alabama-...

https://reason.com/2022/05/08/11-insanely-corrupt-speed-trap...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-trap-profits-could-come-e...

> Waldo, Florida, is just two square miles, and Highway 301 runs right through the village, but the highway speed limit changed six times, enabling police to write thousands of tickets a year. The AAA put up a billboard warning drivers.

It's the responsibility of town planners, etc. to design roads and their speed limits for safe traffic flow. Sudden speed limit changes are dangerous, and a much safer approach - if, say, a highway runs through a village for two miles, with multiple junctions - is to have a single speed limit for the entire stretch. Not to have speed ups and slow downs, aggressive enforcement, and evidence that the majority of your village's funding comes from fines. That is municipal malfeasance.

Post reply on HN