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

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#51

Post by logfromblammo »

bluedino wrote: post #12
imron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From taxes, which although complex, are still well publicized and listed and it's easy to know how much you need to pay and when. You also (generally) pay these based on your income level. That's completely different from have arbitrary amounts of cash confiscated from you at arbitrary times.

You also get to vote on increasing/decreasing police funding.

Though you should bear in mind that if you do vote to decrease police funding, they may respond by increasing forfeitures and enforcement of revenue-generating ordinances.

So now, instead of being able to drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone without being molested, they swap out the signs for 45 mph, you get pulled over for driving 46 mph, the officer "smells marijuana" when you open your window, and you lose your car. You get the ticket thrown out because the limit was still 55, despite the change of signage, but the judge rules that the cops still have reasonable cause to stop you, search your car, and seize it, because you were still driving faster than what the signs said.

Of course, the same could happen if you vote to increase funding.

The police are servants of the legislature, not the citizenry. You can't fire or demote someone who doesn't work for you.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#52

Post by jessaustin »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29
badsock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good? The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country i…

Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America eithe…

Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on.

Afghanistan has had problems for some time, but Libya and Iraq both functioned as nations before ill-advised adventurism on the part of Western powers. This "list goes on" shit is particularly chilling to those who value peace, life, and national solvency. What other functioning nations must be broken to feed the military-industrial complex?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#53

Post by rayiner »

pjc50 wrote: post #50
merpnderp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your savings and you're on the way to buy a car?

The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control. The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...

You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn't saying that it's a good idea to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife's interest. It was saying that Michigan's lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional violation.

A lot of decisions that seem "outrageously stupid" make more sense if you think of the Supreme Court as an umpire. The democratically-elected legislatures are supposed to make good decisions. The unelected Supreme Court should only check them if they do something egregiously against the rules. The Court should let the "game play on" if there's not a very good reason to say that a 200+ year old document trumps a state legislature's contemporary decisions.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#54

Post by Loque »

joshfraser wrote: post #31
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

It is unconstitutional, but our government stopped following that document a while ago. Just look at civil forfeiture, the NSA dragnet, journalists being sued by the Whitehouse administration, NDAA authorization to kill Americans w/o trial or the existence of Gitmo.

Unless it is to defend gun ownership? (clueless UK citizen here)

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#55

Post by Lawtonfogle »

joshuaheard wrote: post #35
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

>The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there was not.

It is worse than that. The money is what is charged, not the person. So the money has to prove itself innocent, which is pretty much impossible. If you hire a fancy lawyer, you might be able to fight on the money's behalf.

It seems so weird that had one read it in a fictional story, it would've broken one's suspension of disbelief.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#56

Post by hyperpape »

adekok wrote: post #42
hyperpape wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th amendment has consistently understood to allow police to search in exigent circumstances[1], and that's the right decision. If the police have good reason to believe you just robbed a store or attacked someone, they shouldn't need to get a warrant to search you. And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. The problem is that the courts h…

> ... they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. Temporarily. If they're not going to charge you, they should return the gun. The alternative is to declare "gun free" zones near the location of all gun crimes. Not sure who did it? No problem! Take everyones guns.

That's a fair addition. The logic I was outlining only applies to evidence in an investigation.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#57

Post by Lawtonfogle »

hyperpape wrote: post #27
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

The 4th amendment has consistently understood to allow police to search in exigent circumstances[1], and that's the right decision. If the police have good reason to believe you just robbed a store or attacked someone, they shouldn't need to get a warrant to search you. And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. The problem is that the courts h…

> And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun.

Yes they should. Either they are arresting you and the gun gets processed like everything else, or they aren't arresting you and thus need a warrant to seize anything from you. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you for the crime then they don't have enough evidence to seize the gun without a warrant.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#58

Post by rayiner »

Jtsummers wrote: post #28
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

I'm not sure of all the cases, but one of the major common factors seems to be possession of large amounts of cash. They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. It shouldn't be legal, but thanks to the drug war and post-9/11 anti-terrorism politics, it's been enabled by federal legislation and…

> They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it.

Think about it statistically. The standard is "more likely than not" the money is obtained illegally. If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize the cash under that standard. You don't need to make the judgment that no one has a legitimate reason to carry that cash, just the weaker judgment that it's statistically unlikely that the cash is legitimate.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#59

Post by jessaustin »

commentzorro wrote: post #24

This is the Republican Dream. Shifting taxes to states then to localities and finally to each group within the locality. As the nation moves farther and farther to the right expect the to happen in every state and local agency out there.

In this supposed Dream, who would pay for the missiles and bombs? We've got to destroy developing nations on a regular basis! Republicans actually agree completely with your preference for top-down central control.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#60

Post by badsock »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29
badsock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good? The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country i…

Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America eithe…

I understand that you don't consider them countries. What I'm saying is "they're a mess" is not a bright line over which you can revoke the people living there's rights of sovereignty.
Post reply on HN