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

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#61

Post by simoncion »

rhino369 wrote: post #43
VieElm wrote: post #12

Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates the 4th amendment.

It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof. The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no due process before they seize the money in the first place. But you do get the due process after the fact. Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from do…

> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from doesn't go back to claim it. Why?

Because the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive.

NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#62

Post by itistoday2 »

itistoday2 wrote: post #46
thedufer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.

> Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. It is both. > calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation. Taxation today is theft.

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

We are unable to give consent (consent implies choice), so it is theft through coercion (prison).

See "group fund" for a voluntary form of taxation: http://groupcurrency.org

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#63

Post by dankohn1 »

api wrote: post #57
dankohn1 wrote: post #31

For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.

So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?

Civil forfeiture appears to be one of the few issues that does not have a clear partisan breakdown. I would suggest the biggest issue is inertia, and raising awareness that change needs to occur. Here's a good background: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/20/7860363/equitable-sharing-polic...

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#64

Post by Goronmon »

thedufer wrote: post #42
itistoday2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…

Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.

You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.

I would say that calling civil forfeiture as theft makes more sense then comparing civil forfeiture to taxation. Unless you live in an area where "taxation" means armed men come to your house and demand all your cash on April 15th.

Honestly, I don't really buy the argument that in cases like this, its wrong to call the action theft. I don't find the terms mutually exclusive depending on the context.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#65

Post by a3n »

MCRed wrote: post #9

I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..." I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then. This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim…

> the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance.

Vote 3rd party, it's essentially "none of the above."

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#67

Post by steven2012 »

This is why we can never, ever trust the government to "do the right thing". They have a law that should be used against real criminals, and instead they use it against regular innocent citizens. This is disgusting, and guess what: it's going to happen time and time again whenever we give the government too much power over our lives. And yet, it's happening right now.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#68

Post by dankohn1 »

a3n wrote: post #60
api wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?

Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."

3rd party voting is largely a wasted vote in First Pass the Post [0] systems like the US.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#69

Post by rahimnathwani »

aftbit wrote: post #24

One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v. Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this, you'll need to use cash. However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless seizure because of so…

This is an interesting point. If the only way to avoid submission of information to your bank is to forego banking services, then this is not a meaningful choice, and you're not giving up the information voluntarily.

It is analogous to the point a judge made in a case here: http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373

"The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law. The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful choice."

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#70

Post by simoncion »

cnvogel wrote: post #59
simoncion wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shrug Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes. I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot agree that forfeiture has never been used to fight crime. Much like it's pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet has swept up evidence…

I see what you're getting at. But I also am convinced that, would you present this on public television or anything with a similar broad distribution, you'd persuade many people to support civil forfeiture (or the NSA dragnet), because it's obviously effective against crime ! In the general public, only a minority seems to still be interested that means are somehow proportionate to the ends. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! IN…

You're making an argument that I don't disagree with and that also doesn't address anything in my comment. :)

I was making a narrow statement that addressed MCRed's comment. My footnote was presented to make my position abundantly clear to all who would read my comment.

Post reply on HN