In Plane Sight: Drug agents searching passengers for cash at airport gates | Hacker News Reader

In Plane Sight: Drug agents searching passengers for cash at airport gates

atlantanewsfirst.com

103 pointsc42068 comments

CAF is Kafkaesque bullshit everyone knows is wrong but scurries forward through time like a cockroach because SCOTUS failed to invalidate it forcefully and it benefits the over-militarized police-bureaucracy complex. Also don't forget the genesis of the WoD was for Nixon and his cronies to criminalize being black (or a hippie). Having a pile of cash is like having a hammer: both have legitimate and illegitimate purposes, so it should only be allowed to be a secondary signal of suspicion in general Terry stop investigation rather than as probable cause ipso facto. This is a critical error in logic and encourages the corruption of police officers to turn them into criminal thieves who betray the rule of law.

CAF = Civil Asset Forfeiture

WoD = War on Drugs

It looks that "Would you help me repair my door ?" is widespread in the land of the free.

Isn’t cash ruled as free speech, so is there a first amendment argument that CAF is suppressing speech?

> Sgt. David Fikes is still featured on the Brookhaven Police Department’s Facebook page even though he is conducting plain-clothes drug interdiction operations at the airport and elsewhere.

> Sgt. Fikes has been involved in the seizure of $1,163,047, according to records Atlanta News First Investigates obtained through an open records request. His department’s cut is about nine percent of that money, but Brookhaven is responsible for his salary, police car, K9 and other expenses.

So a cop's department gets a direct cut of the money they seize. Textbook example of a perverse incentive.

This is not unusual. I can't put my hands on the article at the moment, but there are prosecutors offices and police departments funded entirely by civil forfeiture.

This is unusual outside of the states, because most people understand that this creates bad incentives.

You're absolutely right, it is routine in America. Civil forfeiture needs to go.

There was an article last year about a municipality effectively setting forfeiture targets because this money went into the general coffers and was integral to the municipal budget. It’s ridiculous.

Brookhaven is really shady.

They are an incorporated city JUST north of the Atlanta core that has rapidly annexed unincorporated parts of the area and they are THROWING money around like a rapper in Magic City.

There's a lot of community uproar lately about them pushing ahead with a SEVENTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR city hall which apparently was not bid on and is quite a bit more than a very large mixed use complex that is being built down the street. Residents complaining their taxes have DOUBLED since being annexed, etc.

And yeah their police office is already much nicer and larger than even the City of Atlanta's

It was a lot shadier before Brookhaven incorporated. They are the reason the area exploded in many ways. I’m a former resident but I haven’t heard about the City Hall issue, guess they want to rival Sandy Springs. Looking online Sandy Spring’s City Hall cost $180 million.

Seems ridiculous to me that still, 22 years later, a single failed shoe bomber still forced us all collectively to have to take off our shoes at the security check. But only for flights in America! This is just one scene of the stupid security theatre we are subjected to. By the way, a DHS report from 2015 found that TSA fails to detect threats 95% of the time.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-fin...

The security folks I dealt with in London recently laughed at the TSA because of this.

Fear is a powerful tool. "Fear is the mind-killer."

The "conspiracy theory" take is that the failed shoe bomber was just an excuse to ratchet down the controls and normalize it. Boiling the frog. I've also heard the even more plausible theory that TSA is just a jobs program anyway so that's another reason to "sell" its existence.

I'm so tired of this crap. Not for even a microsecond do I believe their justification. They do this because they want cash, and they know they can get away with it. That's it, plain and simple

Civil asset forfeiture needs to be explicitly made illegal.

I think it undermines the rule of law, and probably respect for authority.

very slowly when it mostly targets black people (at the location on the article) and all the bystanders think it’s an actual criminal being stopped

Neither of those things are considered valuable by the authorities. They demand only your compliance and do not care if your compliance willing or unwilling.

hence the TSA's mandate of "take off your shoes because one person tried something with their shoe one time" that another poster mentioned on this thread.

Time to understand law as an instrument of power rather than a solution to injustice by power

> That's it, plain and simple

Actually, TFA emphasises the role of "racial profiling", a.k.a. picking on black people.

For anyone interested in ending CAF abuses: Institute for Justice has been doing strong work for years. They help victims of CAF recover seized assets while setting judicial precedents that rein in LE abuses of the practice.

https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/

Can’t believe giving jerks a gun, a badge, instructions to robs citizens and virtual impunity even if they murder you has turned out like this!

There is zero hope this can be reformed. None of the people involved in doing civil asset forfeiture are fit for society with other people.

It is absolutely astounding to me that such behaviours are both legal and tolerated in the so-called "land of the free". Astounding. You need to prove that your money is innocent? Pulling up bank statements on the jet bridge?

Bank statements do not work in these cases because the money may have been tainted by crime before it went into the bank. Remember, it is the civil asset being tried, not the holder. The holder has no legal standing in a civil asset forfeiture case.

US police routinely extort as well - you get your property back (such as a building) if you pay us for it, or if you donate a truck to the sheriff, etc

I’ve posted front page articles on this if you want references

Not that guy but you have quite a few posts (really like some btw). Do you happen to have some specific best ones handy to share? I'll check out more of your submissions later anyhow.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36975143

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/like...

https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/investigations/after-hi...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37352486

just the ones within reach

civil forfeiture is also a problem in canada and likely other countries that i don't know as much about - don't mean to paint it as a US-centric issue

Rotten from end to end. Beyond the bs of civil forfeiture, what I'm the most terrified with is how disguised the interaction is.

I'm not naive and in the camp and think that under-cover cops shouldn't be able to lie about being a cop or whatever.

But the situation that the cops are creating, in a situation where your rights are already slightly garbled (thanks TSA) is complete bullshit.

> Passengers are free to end the discussion and walk away, according to the DEA, even if they’re unaware of those rights.

This is the most bullshit thing ever.

I read somewhere else that you have to consent to the TSA to search your stuff if you're flying but of course you do NOT have to consent to a warrant-less search from law enforcement.

They are relying on someone trying to make their flight not knowing or realizing that distinction to (basically illegally) search them without even probable cause.

The only reason it's not illegal for them to even search them in the first place is because the person consents.

Yes, you are right, you don't have to consent. But then you won't be able to fly either. And TSA isn't law enforcement. I personally believe TSA is unconstitutional. What they are doing relies in some old executive order. And the courts have upheld it as long as they are unobtrusive, which they aren't.

Meanwhile in Sweden, cash is commonly seen as a suspicious method of paying, something you do "if you have something to hide".

A year ago or so, I had a small amount of cash that I would spend at some work lunches, and got the usual jokes from colleagues about "where did you get that kind of money from".

There is a strong argument to be made for cash and privacy, it's the same concept as VPNs. Though really we need gold for that (and no, I don't own any boomer rocks, just finally understood the whole "fungible" concept crypto bros keep talking about.

This is why we all need to pay cash as often as feasible. Cash is the ultimate anonymous decentralized offline payment. Support it always.

My rule now is anything under $100 always pay cash.

A state-by-state list of CAF practices and requirements for both sides here[0].

It's important to note that this obviously doesn't include the federal government who have the means and authority to do basically whatever they want where ever they want, especially in airports and the laughably large "border zone"[1]. 65% of the US population lives in this "special" area with expanded powers for the federal government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-w...

The practice of civil forfeiture needs to die, and those who practice it need to go to jail. It does nothing but victimize innocent people.

And people /continue/ to screech that discreet, non-interdictable value transfer devices like Bitcoin have no value.

I tell you, moving hundreds of thousands of dollars across state and international lines is /entirely doable/, and these cretins in uniform are simply accelerating that knowledge transfer.

Aren't people allowed to carry cash?

You are allowed to carry it, but the authorities are allowed to take it, and you are allowed to get the f--k over it.

Fuck cops

I guess reliance on civil forfeiture to fund public services is the result of the US public's aversion to taxes?

These DEA agents are relying on air travellers' reluctance to just say "Fuck off" when someone with a badge says "Sir, I need to search your bag".

Not at all. None of this money goes to fund operations. They use it for shit like coffee makers and gym equipment.

The money doesn’t get budgeted. It’s used for things like sports memorabilia, personal use high-end trucks, luxury/premium dog food (actual examples)

Hi, middle class US citizen here. ~1/3 of my money goes to the government every paycheck. How tf much more would you like me to fund them, exactly?

Wow - 1/3 seems a lot, for payroll taxes. Do you not get tax-free allowances?

I spend nearly all of my income; VAT (sales tax) takes more than 20% of that. Other non-payroll taxes:

* Council tax (land-value tax)

* My pension is taxed as income, even though I already paid for it through National Insurance (a payroll tax)

* If I drove a car, I'd be taxed again.

* If I dispose of assets, I get charged CGT.

If I was still working, I reckon I'd be paying over 50% of my earnings in taxes. I wish politicians would come clean, and simply levy taxes on income. It's fair, and it's transparent.

So that's the "freedom dividend" everyone is talking about?

We all get to divide the time spent licking their boots.

I was thinking about this, if I laundered like 50K into a necklace, could they reasonably confiscate my jewellery?

So I wonder : do they take any amount? Say like $20 or $100?

The article doesn't say ( I think ).

They’ll take what they find

I would go for their bosses: these looks a bit dumb to invent this by themselves

ACAB is sadly increasingly accurate

Wow. Straight up theft by the people meant to "protect and serve". And people really wonder why I'm a Libertarian.

> And people really wonder why I'm a Libertarian.

Libertarians don't have a monopoly on concern about abuses. But here you go:

https://old.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/58eo3q/libertari...

I didn't expect to laugh so much first thing today, thank you for that link!

I think these days anyone with more than a few hundred dollars of cash on hand is justifiably raising suspicion. Who uses cash these days? Except when someone is flying to a country where credit cards are poorly or not at all accepted (wartime Russia), or where the exchange rate is manipulated so it's silly to use them (Venezuela, Argentina), and maybe some 3rd world countries in general. Yes i take $5-10K of cash with me when i fly to Kyrgyzstan "just to feel safe" (but i have nothing at all to substantiate my concern and never actually needed it - cards are accepted everywhere except taxis), but we are speaking about U.S. domestic flights.

Seeing people with considerable amounts of cash as suspicious makes some sense to me.

Even if it is suspicious, that's no reason police should be able to seize it.

Generally suspicious activity that doesn't point to a particular crime is not even enough to justify a traffic stop, let alone a warrantless search.

Exactly. Supposedly there already is a clear and distinct line where officers are supposed to go into action and that is the law.

Seizing based on suspicion only introduces the officers own biases

The officers don't know the passengers have cash, so that is not cause for suspicion.

The search method described doesn't seem that voluntary.

The article never mentioned how much cash - what do you consider "considerable"?

ATL->LAX may be only the first leg of a trip somewhere where you think it is reasonable to bring a considerable amount of cash.

The people searched are disproportionately black.

Black people are disproportionately poor, disproportionately under-served by the banking system, so more likely to carry and use cash.

Or when you go to a state that has zero major banks but want to put a deposit down on rental but all the payment apps have arbitrary payment limits that make it impossible

or the exact same scenario but you dont use a major bank so have no banking to get that much cash quickly or cheaply

the list goes on

The John Oliver episode on it dug up the fact that sums as little as 100 dollars are seized and most seizures are less than 300.

I travel usually with 150-200, just in case of credit card issues. You can bet I would be mad as hell if police took that kind of cash. That is not "asset forfeiture" that is a mugging.

> Who uses cash these days?

Every day laborer is paid in cash around here. Many of them don't even have bank accounts. Contractors have to have big wads of cash handy to get work done.

Being suspicious is not a criminal act. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I love carrying a few hundred bucks in cash, can make things super easy in random situations. Moreover I'm not in the mood to run to the ATM seven times in a night at the strip club.

It's like owning firearms: I find the practice and exercise awesome, and that's all the justification that I need!

>Seeing people with considerable amounts of cash as suspicious makes some sense to me.

Then investigate and find a crime, no reason to plainly steal the money.

> Who uses cash these days?

Plenty of people.

I don't think using cash is even a little suspicious, but even if it were that doesn't justify the authorities stealing that cash.

Carrying cash is entirely legal. There should be at least some indication that the money is connected to a crime before confiscation, and the mere existence of the money is not an indication of a connection to a crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com