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

91–100 of 455 posts

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

#91

Post by gnaritas »

a3n wrote: post #73
dankohn1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You missed the point. Of course whatever 3rd party you vote for won't make it. But it's a registered vote, and it takes a vote away from the two parties. How is voting for a Rep or Dem not a wasted vote, considering what they're doing to us? 3rd parties aren't fucking us (yet). Vote for whoever isn't fucking us, not because they might win (they won't), but to register the protest.

No he didn't miss the point, you did. You didn't read his link and your comment shows that.

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

#93

Post by rhino369 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #80
rhino369 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Sure, if the government took 500 bucks, ya they are kind of fucking you. But for 10k you should fight in court. In that respect it's a lot less oppressive than most government civil actions. If the EPA sues you, we are talking tens of thousands in legal fees. Though I'd support makin…

This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996). There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.

I skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense.

But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense.

US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)

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

#94

Post by Camillo »

nyolfen wrote: post #20
imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

>We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop lol maybe if you're white welcome to the logic that everyone has had to operate under

AFAIK, before the war on drugs, civil forfeiture had seen significant use during Prohibition, against cars used to transport contraband. Which means most of the targets would have been white bootleggers.

But I'm being pedantic. I do agree with the spirit of your comment - it is vital that we immediately divide along race lines, lest any actual change take place.

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

#95

Post by sukilot »

remarkEon wrote: post #38
VieElm wrote: post #12

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

Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf

That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.

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

#96

Post by meric »

zaroth wrote: post #45
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 "…

You could imagine reading it this way: DEA agents confronted the only black man in the train car and demanded he open his bags, shook him down, and stole his cash. In a brazen theft which DEA agents later claimed was legal under the veil of "civil forfeiture" the state prosecutor has refused to press charges, and the judge on the case has refused to provide relief for the plaintiff... I hope we continue to see a rele…

That's a good idea for a blog.

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

#97

Post by adventured »

sukilot wrote: post #87
adventured wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg NY Times or Washington Post). When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the US, it'…

Civil forfeiture abuse and DEA criminality has been in the news for over a decade. Though it may be getting more attention now.

It has, I completely agree. I remember first reading about it in the early 2000's. However a $300 million problem doesn't garner the attention that a $10 billion problem does.

It's similar to why the patent trolls are increasingly getting so much attention from D.C. 20 years ago when they were vastly smaller in their impact and scale, they simply didn't garner the attention of most pundits, journalists, politicians, etc. They didn't impact most businesses at all. Now they've become a vast parasite, and when the dollar drain on the US economy gets into the tens of billions, people start noticing.

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

#98

Post by Pyxl101 »

remarkEon wrote: post #38
VieElm wrote: post #12

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

Kaley v. United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf

What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime.

It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.

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

#99

Post by guelo »

nyolfen wrote: post #20
imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

>We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop lol maybe if you're white welcome to the logic that everyone has had to operate under

Everybody in Andy Grifith's idyllic town was white. Meanwhile half the country lived under legally sanctioned apartheid.

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

#100

Post by aliakhtar »

bcook wrote: post #39

I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.

Yes, or why withdraw it in cash at all? It could be kept in the bank and a debit card used to withdraw it.
Post reply on HN