Stop and Seize
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
> "despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections."
It's illegal, pure and simple. No need to sugar coat.
> "Police can seize cash that they find if they have probable cause to suspect that it is related to criminal activity. The seizure happens through a civil action known as asset forfeiture. Police do not need to charge a person with a crime. The burden of proof is then on the driver to show that the cash is not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the evidence."
Cops in the story act like the mere existence of a lot of cash is probably cause. This is the opposite of one of the major reasons for law and law enforcement: to protect people's property. We have police so we can feel secure with our property, not to take it so we have to fight back for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...
I love watching how systems of people operate. Fascinating stuff.
Over and over, what I see in U.S. history is somebody who has a real problem that needs solved -- perhaps a gnat is flying around the house. The problem looks really sexy on TV. Politicians can thump the table and get lots of votes.
Then these politicians get elected and suddenly we're building industrial flame-throwers to get rid of gnats. "But it's only for the gnats!" they say. And it is -- for about 20 years. Then it slowly becomes a tool like any other.
Part 3 of this story is the most interesting. It's where the rest of us figure out how we've gotten screwed and start clamoring to have something done about it. But nothing happens.
Democracy's bug? That every generation feels like it is special, and that the problems it is having are special. So they "have" to start heavily mucking around with the system. Most every time, these fixes work -- until they don't. Then we're stuck with them forever.
I don't have an answer here, just venting.
As someone whose had to carry around five figure sums around quite a bit in the past because of my profession (hint: it rhymes with "rambling") my far and away, it's not even close, fear is having the money taken by cops from an illegal search. This fear is justified because I've never been mugged or robbed and no one I know who was in the same line of work has either. But I know MANY people who have had funds seized by cops. ESPECIALLY in the south. Actually the horror stories I personally know about have happened only in the south.
Usually it's the cop seeing an out of state license. Pull you over, lies and says you were "swerving" or refuses to give you a reason. Then forces you out of the car, takes the money and sayonara.
AND IF YOU DON'T LIVE where they took it, you'd have to GO THERE to go to court.
That's why in places like Missouri they love pulling over out of state licenses because they know if you live in California you aren't going to be coming back to contest their shenanigans.
I can't stress enough how important it is to know your rights [1]. Never, ever consent to a search. Never, ever "talk" to police (insofar as to assert your rights). They are not your friends. You are being pulled over because you are being accused of a crime. And all too often they will use word games and intimidation to get you to "cooperate" (forfeit your fifth amendment rights).
Even though Burners might be less likely to have large sums of money in their car (cash money is forbidden in trading at Burning Man), suspicion of drugs is a likely story for a stop and seizure.
Even before I was more politically minded, these stops struck me as odd.
'The attention prompted Congress to reform federal seizure laws in 2000, allowing owners to be reimbursed for their legal fees after successful lawsuits. But a key reform was cut. It would have removed what some lawmakers called the “perverse incentive” to target cash — the sharing of money between the feds and locals. It died after police and Justice waged a “voracious lobbying” campaign, according to former representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
“We didn’t have the votes,” said Frank, who is still an ardent critic of asset forfeiture. “There is this terrible unfairness. It is about as fundamental a denial of their constitutional rights as I can think of.”'
I assume you are not advocating that police cannot collect evidence until after a crime is proven in court.
Wait, what? I was unaware that 9/11 was perpetrated by drug traffickers.
Actually, many of the "anti-terror" laws have included in them drug crimes, too, and that's what the vast majority of National Security Letters are used for, too.
Well, drugs and petty crime like theft.
If OP wants to take the easy route by getting his world view from common propaganda (look at some of those other comments. "checks and balances" - that rich!), that's his right (assuming he's not just part of an organized program to stifle discussion). But that doesn't mean we should respect such drivel as legitimate discourse - mass media prevails precisely through sheer attrition.
So we, as a country, had (and still have) a choice: who do we want managing this profitable market? Traditionally, we have chosen to fund violent gangs and cartels. We took what could have been a regulated - and taxed - market, and handed those profits to some of the worst people on the planet. So yes, there is funding going on of some bad people. That is by design - the prohibitionists even put "raising drug prices" as the purpose behind many of their attacks on the supply side ("dealers").
Yes, even in a legitimate market the regulations can fail and there are always loopholes and other problems. When the alternative is to hand piles of cash to violent gangs, even small improvements are worthwhile improvement.
Really, the people who still insist on full prohibition - that is, the people that are choosing to keep sending cash to gangs - are engaging in one of the nastier type of magical thinking. They make the assumption that simply by banning something, demand will magically change. In that view - where nobody should want drugs because they are illegal - it would indeed seem like the people "selfishly ignore the law an buy drugs" are funding various "bad" organizations. You see the same kind of magical thinking in other areas, too, such as "pro-life" groups. I suspect this type of attitude is derived from a Just World Hypothesis[2].
[1] If we can't cut off the supply side of the equation in prisons, we can't do it anywhere.
Really? Aren't most terrorist/guerrilla groups proxies for nation states? Do you seriously think cops have any chance of interdicting that kind of backing?
Not endorsing, just saying what I think he meant.
Why you should never talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Absolutely you shouldn't be leaving the money out in the open, and should probably hide it. You should absolutely NEVER give consent to search your car. You have no idea what a person is capable of until it's too late. I'm not saying the cop will plant something, though it wouldn't be the first time, but you also have NO IDEA what might be in your car accidentally.
As for having dangerous mystery items in your car, if you don't regularly hang out with low lifes that seems ridiculously improbable. Drugs and weapons are not going to sneak into your vehicle or luggage. To have "no idea" what's in your car it would have to be cluttered with junk and you'd have to parade people through it on a regular basis, so uh, don't do that.
"Fuck you" is not an appropriate response, but videotaping responses to respectful questions is: "Am I free to go?" "Am I being detained?" "On what grounds am I being detained?" "Can you please tell me the relevant statutes so I can look them up?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
They will lie or provoke you into doing something, even worse, one of the cops I know had a story about how someone said, "no, you cannot search my vehicle." The cop then asked if he wanted to be arrested for resisting arrest, and the guy gave in because he has no idea what his rights really are. The cop who was telling me seemed pretty smug about it, tricking someone into searching his car...
The point being, it's very hard not to get yourself into a pickle of the police officer really wants you. Most officers have somewhere between 2 - 4 years of formal education, most of which is about how to trick people, not about law. If the police officer suspects you're at fault for anything (or even is just having a bad day and doesn't like your look) he will arrest you.
That being said, always say, "I'm not refusing, but you may not search my car (or persons)" and don't go with them unless you are arrested. Both require them to get a warrant, something they wont do unless they need to. If your pulled over and asked why, always say "no." (fifth amendment right and all).
Finally, always, always, always be super nice and professional. Act innocent and you wont make the officer angry.
How is this different from some third world country where police stop cars to collect bribes from drivers?
Well I'll tell you. In America the whole administration, the judiciary, the legal profession, the government at federal,state and county level are in on it. It seems that it succeeds basically because it is too expensive to get justice through the courts, this means that the courts and legal profession are in on it too. In third world countries is just the police and their superiors who get the money, and it generally petty cash.
It looks like it is not terrorists who are going to destroy America after all. Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and law enforcement will do it on their own.
A justice system which only the rich can afford is not a justice system in principle or in practice.
The funny thing is that it has been going on for decades and it looks like the Washingon Post just noticed, as though they didn't know about it ages ago.
We still have enough liberty here that this article can run in the newspaper freely. That is evidence enough America is far from stinky. Do we have unfair levers of power here? Yes. Are we attempting to determine how the levers got into a few people's control? Yes. Will we figure out how to stop them and keep it from happening again? You bet we will.
And none of that will come to pass because of your crappy comments. It'll happen because we are Americans and aren't going to allow our liberties to being eroded by a bunch of fear mongering asshats. And THAT, my friends, is a blaming statement.
The observation was made that the real damage to the US would come from within and not without. This seems trivially easy to "prove" if you keep up with the news and history.
The observation was made that broad swathes of government and private practice were in league to perpetuate these issues. Such behavior is expected because of the mechanism of action at work: the rot and the power is in the legislative and judicial systems, so of course those folks will be acting in concert.
The observation was made that in other "corrupt" countries officers routinely relieve travelers of excess pecuniary baggage, which appears to also be the case in some parts of the US.
These are not ad hominem propositions, nor were they presented as such.
This is a false statement. "Your country is beginning to stink." is a blaming statement that attempts to lay out pre-support of the opinion "In many respects it is worse than third world countries". However, in the subsequent context in which it is used the statement is presented as a logical conclusion or fact. It is then followed up with another blaming statement meant to seal the 'logic' of the opinion, "It looks like it is not terrorists who are going to destroy America after all. Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and law enforcement will do it on their own."
There is no proof that America will be destroyed by corruption inside government, banks or the judicial system. There are observations that we are threatened by some individual's actions, but there are also observations we are doing something about it. The claims we will be 'destroyed' because we are 'corrupt as a third world country' are simply false. There is no evidence this will occur and it is pure conjecture.
While I agree with you it probably started as an opinion the comment, in general, their comments consititued an irrelevant conclusion. Irrelevant because it was full of blaming opinion from someone outside those being blamed, and conclusion because it was presented as fact. As it turns out, irrelevant conclusions fall into a broad of set of relevance fallacies, which themselves are 'ad hominem' arguments. Look it up.
There's something wrong when police have been funding themselves with $30 billion in essentially stolen money.
I can't count how many times I've heard this comment along the lines of "hurr durr this is Murica and no one is taking muh freedom away". No, your freedoms are already gone and it looks like you haven't woken up to it yet.
You really don't need to use language like this. This isn't Reddit.
In America these institutions exist, but the legislatures have turned them into revenue collecting bodies for the federal,state, local governments and the law enforcement bodies.
It is like law enforcement and the legal system have turned into feeding troughs for the whole band of officials involved in it.
If you are not rich enough to give your lawyer a fair share of what they steal from you, you are not getting it back. If you are rich enough they don't bother stealing from you because they know you have the power to get it back.
This sucks. Apparently police and prison officers unions and PACS or whatever their called fund political campaigns which result in preserved or even bigger budgets for law enforcement, then turn around and use the increased income to fund the politicians next time around, to keep the cycle going (except Detroit), which results in more borrowing by the government from which the banks also get their share, pauperising future generations even more.
It is an interesting country.
I don't think you get mine about speaking for others and making blaming statements. You can't say what I get or what I don't get, nor can you form blaming opinions and then try to speak them as fact. This behavior itself is where problems start, not where they are ended. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand and everything to do with solid lines of communication between those that agree to disagree.
I hear you when you say we have problems. We do. Like other countries, we have certain traits that make up who we are as a culture. Part of our culture, at least historically, is firmly objecting to too much government control. Given the recent reaction to the NSA's overreach, I'd say we are moving forward on the issue. Unfortunately for the impatient, this can be painful. We're also know for dragging our feet and whining about change while it is occurring. We're not perfect, but we're trying.
I also don't blame people for the terrible places in which they live either. I don't blame anyone for any repressive regime in which they might live. It's not fair and it's unproductive. I feel my decision to not blame people for any repressive regime they might live under is important to reforming those regimes, and ultimately having sympathy for those regimes' targets.
Once in a while, things do happen in the U.S. to piss off the assholes:
* abolished slavery
* gave women the right to vote
* changed tax structure to try to encourage more of a meritocracy (alas, largely rolled back)
* overturned prohibition (again, losing ground due to war on drugs leading to Al Capone 2.0)
(maybe only once every two generations or so, but there you go)
Alas, there's a list of screwups that could parallel the above list, but we're trying...
EDIT: Don't you think you should at least call him out on such unacceptable behaviour?
I would love to see a law on the books that forbids law enforcement officers from lying to witnesses or the accused to extract evidence or confessions. After all, it's unlawful to lie to them; the playing field should be level on both ends.
I can't imagine why you'd want to preface a refusal by stating "I'm not refusing." That just seems willfully obtuse.
The "I don't consent to searches" line seems a lot more appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVX6NIPzB0
And then there's NSA spying, torture and drone executions of suspected terrorists (even US citizens) without trial.
If someone would have told me 20 years ago, that the US will turn into this, I would have thought that this person must be insane.
Now it wouldn't even surprise me, if the US turns into a giant gulag in the next 10 years.
Edit: I wonder how these policemen justify their actions, after all they are going after their own people.
The sacrifice is too great for the overwhelming majority of the populace comfortable with what they have and a chronic aversion to all things unpleasant. I've lost count of how many people I've seen change the channel when news of war or police brutality come on.
When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we will see change.
Some things are dangerous when they become too easy. Like obtaining a driver's license, or purchasing a gun.
On the other hand, the voting (even if they voted Libertarian/Paul) supported the election system itself, and signaled their agreement to be ruled by the inevitable outcome.
> Because resistance is futile.
Resistance is not futile. We are far bigger and stronger than they are. An organized and determined resistance could dismantle the police state.
But the vast majority of the population is uneducated, uninformed and unmotivated. They're unwilling to turn off TV and talk radio and participate in their community.
And the few who are educated, informed and motivated get discouraged when nobody joins them in their protests, when they're alone in speaking out.
Maybe it needs to get even worse before a critical mass of resistance will set aside their trivial distractions and organize themselves.
That was always the case in past centuries (more so) and still, people frequently rebelled against malevolent authorities.
Have we become too civilized to resist? Or are we just too concerned with our individual well-being to sacrifice some personal safety for a common cause?
And being a police officer probably conditions you pretty quickly to assume that everyone is a bad person. When you do deal with lots of criminals every day you start to assume the worst about everyone you come in contact with.
See e.g. the Zimbardo Prison Experiment for reference on the psychological effects of arbitrary authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment.
I've long thought that income taxes and the money printing press are a pretty juicy targets. If we could enable people to easily stop paying their "federal" taxes, they would do so out of pure self interest, even if they personally enjoyed viewing the war and oppression porn on their TV. Likewise if we could enable people to default on their unsecured debt consequence-free.
Then bitcoin happened - a perfect vaccine for the lethargic state. What could be better than a currency that looks anonymous at the start, yet will be so easy to control when the apparatus of government/finance finally catches up? And despite the burgeoning alt-coin scene, there can only ever be one reserve currency, and its properties will be the ones you can take as universal - interoperable coins merely create little enclaves that will have the screws repeatedly tightened on them. But even independent freedom-minded people don't bother actually examining the properties of the systems they enthusiastically adopt. So, there went that avenue.
These days, I have no fucking idea. Leaving and leading a peaceful life seems prudent, yet that requires consenting hard to whichever new government one explicitly chooses. And if you don't want to be in an effective satellite of USG, then China and Russia are really the only options. And really the only thing differentiating them from USG is a current lack of global power...
Here are my initial thoughts on how it would work, feel free to comment on better ways to implement it / other features
1) If you get pulled over by a cop, you start up the smart phone app and place the phone in the windshield mount (the mount should have power so the phone battery doesn't die)
2) When the app starts, it immediately starts recording (or streaming) audio and video
3) The app quickly connects/matches you to a real lawyer versed in your state's laws
4) Your newly matched lawyer can listen in on the subsequent conversation between you and the police officer. Or alternatively, the lawyer could act as a buffer and do all the talking with the police officer.
Benefits of the app: 5) Since the police officer knows he's being recorded, he may act nicer and more appropriately.
6) If the cop does try to "play games" such as holding the person without arresting, then the lawyer can quickly "step in" and ask the cop if his client is free to leave or whether he is under arrest.
Problems that I'm not sure how to solve:
7) Maybe the cop will tell the driver to step out of the car and around to the back of the vehicle - with the motivation of getting out of earshot of the lawyer/smartphone app.
8) Looking through a cynical lens, this app may face scrutiny by cop unions opposed to it - in how to shut it down
Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I don't know.
There are a bunch of business models. I mean, you could price it like insurance. I pay a monthly fee and you guarantee someone is there to get my ass out of a sling if required.
Heck, you could price it like insurance, too; charge me based on perceived risk, and raise my rates if I actually use it.
I mean, I carry liability insurance against civil suits... Maybe you could talk me into paying for similar insurance against criminal charges?
- Another market would be people who may feel like they get pulled over by the police more often than normal. In this use case, maybe the ACLU would be willing to pay for access to the data/statistics from the phone calls.
Regarding illegal in some states:
- For any state where it is illegal to record a police officer, the app could just relay the audio/video signal to the lawyer without recording. The important part is that the driver has representation and the lawyer can still witness what takes place.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140320/11095226634/il-ov...
But I get the impression that's not enough. As soon as they see cash, it's theirs.
And the thing is, I have plenty more in the bank. So if I am stopped and any cash or items are seized, the first thing I'm going to do is call my attorney and go about my business until I have sued the jurisdiction, the officer(s), and anyone else connected to the seizure back into the stone age.
I retired young after a successful career. Lots of tattoos. Gold Rolex, long hair, under 50 - I am an unscrupulous officer's wet dream. But I am sober, intelligent and law abiding. I never break the law and my driving record is spotless because of it. Pull me over and you're hunting, because you didn't see me weave.
Bring it.
And for those of you who are ready to say, "F you - you're rich", or whatever - spare me. I am exactly the kind of citizen who will eventually bring this kind of thing to a halt. I can afford to take it the Supreme Court. And I will do so with a relentless determination.
The police to me are a threatening force. If I need them, I'll go ahead and call. Otherwise, mind your own business and we'll be fine. So far in 47 years I have never needed them. And I know to a certainty I don't need them violating my rights.
If you want to do something about this then help some of the people in this situation take their case to court.
"have you seen the video where the guy just keeps repeating, 'Am I being detained? Am I free to go?' what an asshole"
And anyone defending those people is instantly labelled a gun freak.
Apparently it was very important to keep various Snowden disclosures secret, because:
DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE
SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF
THIS COMPANY
Company? Country? I'm going with "Freudian slip of the century"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...
The organization behind it is the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has performed ample pro bono litigation against civil asset forfeiture abuse.
If you choose to donate to them (which I encourage), note that they do legal work in other areas that you may or may not agree with, so you should take a look at that first.
(Note: I am not affiliated with IJ, I just admire their work.)
In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom declaration.
It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.
Our current way of living insists on third party participation during even A -> B trades, it's ridiculous and inefficient.
Important point: checks and wire transfers are free.
I'm not okay with that, nor should someone else be ok with it.
If it's generally known that nobody carries large amounts of cash, I imagine it might make muggings a bit less common.
It's not so much you personally carrying lots of cash that's safe or unsafe, it's what fraction of the population carries lots of cash that makes things safe or unsafe.
Muggers are after enough money to buy drugs, and so they don't care if it's a few dollars.
You certainly added to the discussion with an interesting fact. Thank you.
http://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-...
You might not be bothered by it. But I implore you to look past your own comfort and respect that others are bothered -- to at least see the possible problems. I'll reduce the terms. Many people don't want their personal, consensual affairs tracked, limited, and dictated by a central authority. A central authority for sake of discussion is the entity that tends to strip people of their physical and psychological humanity by means of economic persecution, containing people in cages, subjecting people to various forms of isolation and torture, and killing people. Thus, in no uncertain terms, many people don't enjoy increasing the power (i.e. legal and otherwise) of that central authority. They especially don't like doing so, the more they see the system on which it operates as being oligarchical, abusive, and unethical.
How many times must it be repeated through history's political systems to understand that predicating laws upon [search and seizure] is a fast-track ticket to tyranny? The United States has been riding this road for a long time. See: Prohibition / Drug War. Do you see a problem with an economic incentive for subjecting people to searches? Do you see a problem with their labor/value stolen? Would you see a problem if it were a mafia setting terms (hell, they could even let you vote and call it democratic, wink-wink) and then pulling you over to intimidate you and take as they see fit -- or possibly worse? One of the biggest problems is when people don't see the problem.
Just because it's that way in France I see no reason to start thinking it's the new normal.
Also, according to the video, I don't know what the lower limit is but they seized $2,500 from someone (less then 2000 euros at current rates).
If this makes you sick, tell your congresspeople, and tell your friends to do the same. We do not get to have the rights we want without declaring that we want them.
The prosecutor argued 'No car, no crime', and the jury bought it.
To me that's like arguing 'No clothes, no crime' and jailing the board of Walmart for selling underwear. Or 'No food, no crime' and jailing the staff of a nearby diner.
If that was your intention then why on earth did you allow seizures from civilians? Seems to me that the best way to seize a million dollars from a cocaine dealer is to arrest him if you have reasonable suspicion, and if he's convicted, seize the money.
But of course, it's a lot easier to just take his money without being able to prove your suspicion. :\
* Asset forfeiture abuses by police have been going on for at least a generation. Here's an excerpt from House Judiciary testimony by an African American gardener who dared to carry $9K in cash in 1991 to buy plants at a nursery. He had it all (surprise!) confiscated by cops. The fact that it's been 23 years and the abuses are worse, not better, is telling. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he... And here's a note I sent to Politech on the topic back in 1998: http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html
* Contrary to some claims in this thread, there are reasons to transport significant sums of $10K+ in cash. Contractors, tree removal companies, landscape installers, grading/excavation firms, etc. can charge that much for work and, I'm told by my SF peninsula neighbors who have had work done, often offer cash discounts. (Which means, of course, both the homeowner and the contractor would be transporting large cash amounts sequentially.)
* I suspect that governments would, to a first approximation, prefer that their own citizens engage only in traceable, trackable, non-anonymous electronic transactions with closely regulated financial firms. This is already happening: cash now represents only 14% of dollar payments by value. Though my favorite example in this area is this proposal that bubbled up inside the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; I wrote about it for Wired in 1999:
http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121 "The magnetic strip could visibly record when a bill was last withdrawn from the banking system. A carry tax could be deducted from each bill upon deposit according to how long the bill was in circulation... Systems would have to be put in place at banks and automatic teller machines to read bills, assess the carry tax, and stamp the bills 'current...'"
Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense, rather than implying that there was any wrong-doing on the part of the cash carriers.
I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought.
However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust 'em or don't use 'em just because) and this is how they buy a house or buy a car or go from one state to another with their possessions.
Now, here's where my ambivalence comes from: do we let the money laundering go because a few of these are false positives? Or do we accept the false positives because it serves the greater good because it catches or causes attrition for money launderers?
I think electronic or check transfers are a rational solution to the problem at hand and so folks should use that.
But I'm still ambivalent. Constitution. Checks and balances.
"Screw you, I've got mine."
Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft). The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?
When it's all you have, and already allocated to an expense that's necessary in one way or another. The fact that cash is in paper form, and not electronic form doesn't imply that it's from the discretionary part of your budget.
Also, there is the phenomenon of people with low incomes opting out of the banking system for various reasons including distrust of it.
[edit: 11:24AM CDT added second paragraph]
1. delays have a low marginal cost
or
2. the receiving party is both wealthy and trusting enough to buffer the entire transaction
Banks operate on a principle of eventual consistency that lets transactions and accounts dangle in limbo for days to weeks. Delays cost money: lost opportunities, missed deadlines, rent. Is it really so hard to believe that the expected cost of a weeklong delay (which happen all the time) would be more than the expected cost of theft (which is rare in comparison)?
However, protecting yourself against something like this doesn't have to mean that you think it's a reasonable and justified action. As I explained earlier, for the same reason I generally wouldn't carry this much cash around, I don't leave valuable items inside my locked car, even though it is illegal and unjust for someone to break into it and steal them.
It may help to compare cash to bitcoin to help you imagine it. One of bitcoin's motivations is, "Why does the convenience of electronic transfer come bundled with central authority?"
If you can reduce middle-man risk, that's a good thing. Banks have lost reputation with the poor to the point that it's seen as less risky to transport sums in cash.
Like, really--what is the actual harm of letting the laundering occur? What is the root cause of that harm? Why is it a large and profitable industry at all (hint: it's not because of the drugs)?
Then look at it on the other side:
What is the harm done to a citizen or person who isn't conducting illegal business but who is suddenly losing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars out of nowhere? What does that do to them, and can they recover? What is the chance of things escalating during such a seizure and in turn causing them to be punished by the state further (consider any number of padding charges a cop/DA might decide to hit them with)?
Lastly, consider the precedent being enforced: you now have your justice system interfering with legal common commerce. Where does that stop? What do we have to gain? What happens if anonymous financial transactions are disallowed?
Answer these questions, and I think you'll begin to see why this is so troubling.
That means, if tomorrow suddenly it'd be possible to launder x% more funds with the same effort, then immediately that fraud will grow by that same x%.
Also, for certain types of crime 'following the money' is pretty much the only way how they get solved. Anti money laundering laws have valid uses - of course, they definitely don't need to prescribe seizing legally obtained cash.
Indeed, the very fact that credit card fraud is effective is more proof that the existing credit system needs upgrading and that cash-only is not an unreasonable way of handling these transactions.
If your money is a number and only you know what it is, it is safe from these kinds of intrusions.
I sold a car to someone on craigslist for a few thousand dollars. The person who bought it paid in cash, still in a bank envelope. This transaction was not criminal, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the money had illicit origins. I promptly deposited the cash into a checking account. The amount certainly prompted a Suspicious Activity Report to FinCEN, which I made no attempt to avoid, as doing so would have indeed been criminal.
Cash is just by far the most trustworthy form of payment to accept from strangers (other than perhaps cryptocurrency or physically going to the bank with them), which is why craigslist warns against money orders or checks of any kind.
It would have been entirely and unambiguously unjust if the state had seized that money from either me or the person I legally sold my car to.
And personal checks are plenty risky for fraud and insufficient funds.
Now, you prefixed your comment with "This is by no means a justification" so this isn't directed at you, but one of the reasons the criminal justice system is so messed up is because people in a position of power (judges, prosecutors, but also voters) don't realize what it's like to be poor, so when a poor person does something that they wouldn't do (like carrying large sums of cash), they assume it's either suspicious, or if not suspicious, foolish, so the poor person deserves what he/she gets. A bit of empathy could go a long way here.
Of the three victims that were profiled, 2 were business owners, all 3 (presumably) owned vehicles, and were carrying anywhere from $18k to $75. Now, that doesn't mean they were well off, but it's also not sounding like most people's definition of poverty. Surely business owners have to deal with the costs of bank transactions.
Again, I'm not trying to blame the victims here. I think they were wronged and that the police are overstepping their mandate. I do empathize with what happened to them. However, I've had enough experiences in life to form the belief that while at the same time you should stand up and speak against wrongdoings like this, you should also protect yourself as best you can, knowing that these things, sadly, will happen. That's where my original question originated from. For example, I don't keep valuables in my car, because while I know that the thieves who break into my car once or twice a year are completely in the wrong, I know I am putting myself at risk if I leave stuff in there for them to take. I'm not going to leave stuff in the car out of principle, because it's my "right".
One should be able to proffer advice without it being victim-blaming, but I do question the utility of offering advice which is difficult for the intended recipient to follow. Also remember we don't hear about the cases where cops don't seize cash, so the risk of carrying cash might be more tolerable than giving up some of your hard-earned money to banks.
- People that gave me cash in an envelope at my wedding, as it's cheaper than getting a money order/bank check if you don't write a regular check that takes forever to clear with large amounts. Don't want to think about how much I was carting back home that night. Hell, replace wedding with any situation - I have had to cart around a fair amount of money in general between my parents and their friends that are in a war with each other over gifts/paying for things, sometimes unknowingly when people stuff an envelope in my purse/bag or somewhere in my car and then only tell me after the fact. (If you're Asian, you know what I'm talking about.)
- Me hauling ~$5k to go straight from my restaurant and bank across the street, to one of a couple of restaurant supply stores that offer a cash discount because they don't want to deal with fraud and fees (and nor do I). It's rare I buy a piece of equipment with cash, but sometimes it's urgent so I go in person instead of ordering it online.
- The other day, dad was in the hospital and they wanted payment asap. I had been in a rush and I didn't have my CCs on me only like $60 in cash and an ID, so I went to my restaurant and brought the payment over that was otherwise going to be deposited in the bank later that day.
Some of this is cultural though - older or still very Asian folks that like the feel of cold, hard cash. They're a lot of small business owners with businesses that deal with a lot of cash on a regular basis too. So you know what some of the deal is ;)
Having dealt with $10k+ checks in general though, I almost want to just deal with cash but it's just too easy to lose. I deposited a ~$50k bank check in my business account that took _three weeks_ to clear. As in, fully guaranteed by the bank funds. When they're not and they're just personal checks, I've occasionally gotten a stinkeye from bank tellers, nevermind the pain of going to the bank to deposit a check in the 5 figures in the first place (typically can't ATM or app deposit) - even though that's not uncommon for me (not even 1mo of contracting, or my parents' gift to me for my wedding).
You might as well say something like "I don't see why anyone would legitimately like death metal music." It's fine to not understand or share people's opinions and preferences, but it's ridiculous to support them being robbed simply because their preferences differ from yours.
I read the parent as specifically disclaiming such an implication.
Fatimah is an observant Muslim and thus has restricted choice of bank accounts. Her business is also a cash business but she keeps most of the cash in a safe because getting to a branch of a bank that offers an account that is compatible with her faith is a long drive. Thus she tends to have sizable amounts of cash when she actually goes to the bank.
Chris has been saving to buy a car. Chris has a problem controlling his spending with credit and debit cards, so he hands cash to his father who stuffs it in an envelope under a matress. While it's not particularly rational it works for Chris who now has $7,500 to buy a vehicle.
There's a bit of inconsistancy going on: "all criminals use cash, thus everyone who uses cash is a criminal". That's the kind of thinking that children are taught to be careful of and it's a bit scary to see it written into law.
Carrying $75K in cash around should raise anyone's suspicions as to the purpose, no matter what the carrier claims. Think about it. Why would YOU carry $75K in cash?
The obvious and well known reasons are, it's the most secure way to fund drug and terrorist cells without leaving a trail. The Post even acknowledges that!
"There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals ... "
But not until they make their accusations and end the above sentence with:
"... and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police departments."
Note that only a sixth of those seizures were ever challenged but the Post claims it's only because it's too expensive to do so. They do NOT question whether it's because it's drug or terrorist funding (and I will state that it is).
Just unbelievable what these formerly trustworthy newspapers are churning out nowadays.
If it is so obviously a crime in progress, get a freaking warrant.
This is how everything erodes.
One day you will have $2000 on you in cash to buy a used car and they will seize that too.
Also note the part where they found nothing after a warrantless search so they just posted it for other police to harass them later.
However, I have toe vehemently disagree with your rationale. This line of thinking has to stop. Just because YOU can't think of any reason to carry "large" sums of money doesn't mean there IS no legitimate reason. Innocent until proven guilty, all that jazz.
"Think about it. Why would YOU, wear sagging jeans?"
Also, yes, it IS ridiculously expensive to challenge a seizure of money. This happens ALL OF THE TIME in the south, where cops do illegal searches, find money and say DRUG MONEY DRUG MONEY, and 99% of people are SCREWED because the system is stacked against them.
Ignoring the other side of the story is what's going on here.
You may be doing payroll for a small business that pays cash. You may have collected cash from a door-to-door sales job. Possibly you've withdrawn cash to put down as a deposit on an apartment or house. Maybe you're paying for a course for professional qualifications. Maybe you owe three month's back rent.
I'd reckon that all of these put together are more probable than funding a terrorist cell or setting up a drug deal. I'd certainly not give up my rights to do these things "just in case".
Or, are you really asking, what is the RATIO between what you'd deem "legitimate" reasons to carry money and what you'd deem "ill-legitimate"? What is the correct ratio? If we take 50% of the "bad guys" money, and 50% of innocent citizens is that too high? 60/40? 80/20? What is the correct ratio? How can you even know?
1) because I like cash, I like the feel of it, it's real money not bits.
2) Because I don't trust my banks.
3) because they charge fees to transfer the money same day I don't want to pay
4) because I don't like the government and I don't want them to have records of my business transactions if I can help it. I'm honest, I pay my tax but I don't want the IRS keeping records on where I buy my car and from who.
5) because I get a discount for paying in cash.
6) because I borrowed the money from family who do business in cash.
7) because I'm paying someone who prefers cash.
8) because I have to pay 30 different people and I don't have all their bank details.
9) because we've always done payroll in cash.
10) Because I'm taking the cash overseas to a country where US Dollars work and electronic bits don't.
There's 10. There are at least 100 more. And loads I haven't even thought of.
Using cash is a right, and you should feel bad.
Clearly you like breaking laws given your posts and should be arrested and have your property confiscated. What other reason could you have for your lack of respect for law? See how that goes? In soviet Russia, you're welcome.
A legitimate reason would be whatever reason I happen to choose, no different than if I choose to use a credit card, Bitcoin, or write a cheque. No one should have to defend their legal transactions to you or anyone.
That said, some governments are moving down the path of outlawing large cash transactions. Here is one example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/10/17/large-cash...
Second, there are, for example, antique fairs where sellers are not going to take a check from random unknown buyers rom all over the country. Also, some people, notably some immigrants, of which there are a historically large number now, do not trust banks or bank instruments, or simply do not know which bank instruments would be trusted for which types of deals.
> The obvious and well known reasons are, it's the most secure way to fund drug and terrorist cells without leaving a trail. The Post even acknowledges that!
Not everyone has a bank account. Maybe they should but not everyone does. Just because some people carry cash due to illicit purposes does not mean _everyone_ carries large amounts of cash for that reason. Maybe they do not trust banks? Who cares? The point is, people are essentially being punished without a trial and without being proven guilty of a crime. The presumption of innocence seems very important to a lawful society – why should that presumption be forefitted simply because one chooses to carry large amounts of cash?
In no way should anyone assume anything. That's a bad precedence to set.
And as for me, when I sold my house a few years ago, the buyer paid cash (a suitcase of 15,300 £20 notes). I had to take that to the bank and pay it in, which was suprisingly trouble-free. They just counted it and credited me right away.
A $1000 bundle of 20's is 50 bills. Usually they're wrapped up like that. That's only 15stacks. You'd only really have to count one of the stacks, if you didn't trust them.
I read the GP as saying 15.3k bills (i.e. £306k), not £15.3k in £20 bills. In which case, that's 306 stacks.
You weigh the cash with kitchen scales and check it's not paper blanks. That's about it. You have already exchanged contact details and IDs etc so it's all above board plus there is a solicitor present to hand over keys and act as immediate escrow. If there is a miscount of a few notes, ignore it and put it down to an accounting error.
Then you go down the bank, tell them you have a ton of cash to pay in, hand it over and it arrives in your account instantly. You have to provide ID and a receipt for the cash to say where it came from and that is it.
The scary bit was parking up in the local high street with a cash full of cash in your hand at a parking meter paying, then walking to the bank. When you have that sort of cash on you, you look like you have that sort of cash or a dead body in the case. Bank didn't even really think it was surprising.
Pretty depressingly boring.
I watched helicopters arriving in Hatton Garden from an office I worked in once and they were loaded with expensive diamonds and stuff with men in black suits - this was nothing even as remotely interesting or glamorous. The suitacase had no handcuff and was a bog standard samsonite one with dents all over it and the guy who bought it was a retired golf supplies salesperson.
I do somewhat regret not splitting it into £10k slabs and putting them in deposit boxes but I needed the cash for another house! :(
> Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
> Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
The majority of seizures are nowhere near the $75K figure you're concerned about. I agree that large amounts of cash are suspicious, but these seizures seem to draw the line somewhere well below your hyperbolic example. Suspicious activity is not a priori illegal.
Second, when NO criminal charges are made, the seizures are no different than government thuggery. Carrying large amounts of cash is suspicious, and should therefore influence the question of probable cause, which could then be used to gather evidence for criminal charges, but that is not happening in many of these cases. That's a fundamental problem that needs to be reported more widely.
What the Washington Post is talking about here is money taken from people who have not been convicted of anything. Money taken, in the first instance, without recourse to a court of law. Money taken, often, from people without the will or resources to have it overturned. Do not underestimate how powerless people feel in the face of overwhelming authority and how that powerlessness means that they fail to assert their rights. Even those that have the money returned are subject to interest and opportunity costs with returns often taking months.
Only one-sixth of seizures are challenged. This means that approximately $450m every year are taken from people who do have the means to appeal and fight back. Assuming that unreasonable (not the same thing as unsuccessful) appeals are balanced by those without the means to appeal, you are punishing innocent people by half a billion dollars in fines every year. That they may have used the money to buy drugs is not an excuse.
If a society is to have a fair and reasonable justice system, that system must err on the side of the innocent and not on the side of its enforcers. Otherwise it creates perverse incentives and encourages subjugation of the populace, fermenting resentment and a system that is not of the populace, but separate to it. That system is not stable and it is not a system that can act as a basis for progression. It is a cauldron for resentment, enmity and eventually revolution. It is not a good way to live.
There's always a defender for the indefensible in forums supporting authoritarianism. You carry 75k in cash because:
"That's none of your damn business."
Really that's the reason right up until you have a warrant. Even then it may still be the reason and unless proof is offered it's yours and you keep it. Because Freedom.
It's very common amongst migrant communities who raise funds for business amongst family and friends for one. So that's like 90% of the USA within the last few generations. There are many other reasons, many of which you have never considered. And it still isn't your business or anybody else's right up until probable cause and a warrant. People take it seriously when it happens to them, I believe there was a war fought over that once.
Would you rather the Post biased against you or the courts. 10 months to get your money back, no charges and it costs you your business. You get your money back but not the time you spent, the legal fees, no mention of interest, or compensation and to finally get it you have to promise you won't sue. Yeah you enforce that as police because you know you're in the right, sure. If that were me having my property stolen I'd be saying the post didn't go in nearly hard enough on this criminal behaviour and spent too much time not acknowledging police officers can tell lies and you can't take anything claimed by a police officer as a fact just because he or she said it. Would the word biased cover the racial profile of those stopped? Or do you think that white people aren't involved in drug crime at all?
But you see here's the thing about your rights. They exist or they don't. If someone who "might look like a drug dealer" has no rights to unwarranted search and seizure, neither do you.
HSBC do drug money laundering and the people involved aren't prosecuted because it might result in HSBC losing their banking license. Seriously, that's the reason given. Drug money laundering at the big end goes through banks, there are other banks than HSBC involved. If you want to get warrants to do proper searches to fight drug crime that would be the place to start and devote all spare resources. De-criminalization is a much better bet to start solving these immense problems.
So the decision you've made (not to use cash) based on your personal preferences should bind the rest of the humans in this country as well. There are people from every corner of the world living in America, and you have decided that your world view and experience is the only valid one; their rights should be forfeit simply because they live their lives in a way that you yourself do not.
I have noticed this disturbing trend of pride coupled with ignorance among Americans. So many of us lack an understanding and appreciation for the core principles that our founding documents were based on. You've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding of what a "right" actually is. Just because you have personally decided that your rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizures are unimportant does not mean that you can in any way make the same decision for anyone else. That's why we call them "rights" and not "privileges". Rights in this country are a property belonging to individual human beings, not collectively, and not to the state.
Some child with no weapon gets shot in the head in a police car? You're there, absolutely refusing to accept the possibility of police mis-conduct.
What would ot take for you to accept that some police officers are corrupt and that some police officers disobey the law?
When someone has had their money taken what are they supposed to use to fund lawyers to get their money back?
The reason you're being downvoted is because sarcasm doesn't add to the discussion.
So now the working way is sarcasm, shunning and ostracism. Making it personal for people who invented and enacted this system.
They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car.
...was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction...
The deputy found $75,195 in a suitcase in the back seat...
They were carrying $28,500 in church funds meant for the purchase of land...
No doubt there's injustice that needs to be addressed, but it's tough to have much sympathy for idiots. There's simply no logical reason to travel with that much cash. These people should feel lucky that the police, and not someone else, took their money.
This whole preposterous idea that, "Oh, you have lots of money on you MUST BE DRUG MONEY. Let's use draconian laws, and bring in the DEA so we can confiscate it all", is insane. And super prevalent in the south, where people getting stopped on the highway for speeding (or "durr durr you were swerving?") and getting their car illegally searched is all too common. Good luck getting that money back once it's inside the beast. It's a longggg road.
I don't know why each of the people quoted in the article was carrying cash but I'm sure they had their reasons. And even if they were dumb reasons it doesn't matter. Making dumb decisions doesn't grant anyone, even the police force, the right to take what is not theirs. That is so basic and obvious that I wonder if you're just trolling.