These states let police take your stuff even if you haven't committed a crime | Hacker News Reader

These states let police take your stuff even if you haven't committed a crime

vox.com

122 pointsdankohn124 comments

For those of you whose privacy badger configurations block the infographic and you don't feel like accommodating Vox on the matter, here's the map:

http://i.imgur.com/kQc13Fy.png

yah. Don't carry much cash or jewelry in your car on road trips. Some jurisdictions' police treat the presence of cash / jewelry as evidence of criminal activity. They grab it to defray their budgets. They don't have to obtain a conviction to keep it, and they don't have to give it back.

Why are so many laws so stupid and unethical, and yet still being used? How have we let it get to this point?

> Why are so many laws so stupid and unethical,

They were made when the majority of Americans were stupid and unethical.

> and yet still being used?

Because the old generation is still in power.

> How have we let it get to this point?

"the 1960s proved that change is hit or miss, every bloodied pacifist concedes the truth"

In other words, we've tried to fight the system and we lost because they fought[1] back[2].

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-dr...

[2] https://www.rt.com/usa/fbi-assassination-ows-sniper-227/

This isn't an age thing, and isn't a majority thing.

Voter apathy, single issue voters, two-party system, and lack of campaign finance reform amongst many other things.

The Founders forgot to grant voters a check-and-balance role on the 3 branches of government by allowing them to unvote laws that are passed by their duly elected representatives and otherwise tell the various executives and judges across the country that they are doing things wrong. They thought it was enough to let voters focus on securing representatives. They were wrong, and we continue to see the effects of just how well things work for the People when we only get asked to be involved every couple of years.

Many states have voter initiatives, they don't succeed in the way you hypothesize, sadly.

Looks at CA. The voters are even worse than the legislators.

Here in Michigan we have as part of our state constitution the ability to enact and repeal laws through voter referendum.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-II-9

However, our legislature has a fun little loophole for when they are going to pass a law they know the public will try to repeal through a voter referendum. They add a token appropriation to the bill.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/07/m...

Some examples from that article:

"From 2011 through 2014, unnecessary appropriations shielded a number of controversial bills from voter referendum. That includes right-to-work, the repeal of item pricing, the implementation of emergency managers and myriad anti-union laws."

"This past year, the Senate added a $75,000 appropriation to a bill that would repeal prevailing wage in our state, a practice that guarantees competitive wages to people working on public projects. The pretext? That appropriation was supposedly necessary to “disseminate information” to the public about the new law. The reality? Republicans knew voters would oppose the law."

Not even surprised. There needs to be a way for citizens to take their representatives to court for depriving them of their rights.

if you carry lots of cash, carry a large gun too.

How is civil forfeiture not a 5th amendment violation?

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

this was the first hit on searching for "civil forfeiture supreme court" http://uk.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-...

The TLDR is that they are essentially "arresting" the property because it was used in a crime, regardless of who did the crime. The fact that it belonged to someone, often times the person who committed the crime, is sort of irrelevant in the government's opinion.

That's a bit generous of a TL;DR, don't you think?

The reason civil asset forfeiture is controversial is that property can be seized even when a crime has not actually occurred but is merely alleged, and the owner of the property has not been proven guilty of a crime.

There are dirty cops who have taken people's cash on the basis of trumped up charges. This isn't the first time this has been reported on in the US.

"Charges" is rather generous, isn't it? They don't even charge the property before seizing it.

Not saying I agree with it, just explaining why it is legally allowed. And yes I should have used "allegedly" as a qualifier.

A lot of the confiscation does not make that claim even. It's mere suspicion.

The article says this:

> But local and state cops in these states can still use federal law for civil forfeiture.

But does not mention this:

> Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-se...

The feds have resumed a controversial program that lets cops take stuff and keep it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/28/the-f...

Kids, stealing is ok...

8 comments (now 9) 102 points, 3 hours, second page.

Fuck the pro state mods on HN you bury anti government sentiments you worthless shits

it's not getting hits because it's not a surprise. we all knew.

I also have beefs with the way HN works but I think the easier explanation here is that this isn't especially interesting because it's decades old, it's somewhat political which lots of HN users don't like on HN, and it doesn't really provide anything new. The only reason this article exists is because a state got rid of civil asset forfeiture before a conviction a few days ago. So there should really just be a link to that article, which I believe there was days ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com