The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank.
Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen.
At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".
One of the more insidious versions of this is the static thresholds for things like "a suspiciously large amount of cash", which are not inflation adjusted, causing them to effectively shrink over time. A $10K cash travel limit established by the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 would be over $80K in 2025 dollars. The law is structured so that the net is constantly tightening by default.
> When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing.
It's already happening, and it probably just depends on the teller you get. I have no idea if it's policy or not, but I've been questioned pretty intrusively for cash transactions even under the reporting limit of 10k (see: BSA, CTR).
You are probably questioned more about cash transactions under the reporting limit. Over the reporting limit they file a form. Under they have to determine if they need to file a form.
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality.
Already true in Brazil where I live.
It's just the financial arm of global warrantless mass surveillance. I highly recommend not allowing them to do this to you.
Brazilian central bank developed a digital centralized money transfer system called pix. You already know where this is going, right? At first it was great: instant, zero fees, no taxes. Right now the entire nation is angry about the fact our IRS equivalent will start using the pix transaction data to cross reference and audit citizens. If you move more than ~800 USD your financial data gets sent to the government automatically.
I like to believe that Brazil is some kind of test bed for dystopian nonsense like this.
Are you sure the "any amount" generalization is true? I know in Switzerland of money confiscated at border control for simple suspicion, but we are talking (tens of) thousands. Although there's a certain obligation of declaration those people always "forget", that situation stays shitty, but in any case it's a very very far cry from "any amount".
While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.
It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
>It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object
That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.
>> the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply
That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.
SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013).
Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest.
It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")
Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply.
The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property".
Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.
yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason
It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't different in its principles. It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc. Essentially, this is an ex parte action against the asset forcing the owner to prove ownership in order to get legal standing to challenge in the court. It's a terrible system, but it utilizes the same principles found in other Civil laws. These lack of protections is why people push back on things like red flag laws and why legislatures are increasingly looking to use these to bypass things in the criminal side (see TX trying to allow actions against abortion seekers, or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
>> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc.
That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.
Forfeiture is different from seizure. Seizure is perfectly legal, and even ought to be required pending completion of a court case.
Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on seized property.
I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process. However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are not so speedy anymore.
As you note it's not built into other legal systems. In which case, those other legal systems aren't automatically corrupt or based on extortion.
A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the protection of citizens, etc.
Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like Roman justice.
This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should.
> a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should
And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
I'm afraid that this happened, where it is so plainly and fundamentally wrong, expresses that something is fundamentally wrong with the police, and I think it is across the USA? as this behaviour is I think widespread?
We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police don't consider normal). The seized items were either being actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house with no other explanation)
It's a very US thing that for every fine principle such as presumption of innocence, there is an equal and opposite "loophole" or way to bend the rules, that is allowed to make that principle far less effective.
> The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence.
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
Sorry, but civil forfeiture is 'civil' not legal. The US Justice system has completely bypassed all kind of US Level systems controls/protections simply by reclassifying them as 'civil' not 'criminal' because our protections only apply to 'criminal' law, such as the huge differences in the standards for a finding of guilt between civil and criminal law.
> Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption
I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency.
I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed to directly benefit the police or the government they represent.
Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.
Why not? If you want good meat, give financial incentives to your butcher. If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police. The problem isn't the presence of financial incentives, but badly designed financial incentives.
If your SRE gets a bonus every time they fix an issue in production, you would start incentivizing them to make sure production has lots of issues they can easily fix and get their bonus.
If you de-incentivize them every time there is a problem, they will instead try to hide problems.
The problem’s deeper than that: and financial incentive you design, you provide a financial incentive to abuse it. This is why so few people recommend metric-based compensation.
Depends on the definition of the financial incentive. If it means bonus, then this doesn't handle cases of incompetence or malice, they will still get their salary. If that includes salary too e.g. financial penalties, then you'll get police doing things specifically to preserve their salary and instead of focusing on their core responsibilities.
Just carrots, whatever the definition, won't fix everything, there are assholes in every profession, you need sticks too.
How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.
Everyone viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the state has stopped using cash, so leaving this in place as an additional risk to carrying or using cash is a nice bonus in the war against financial privacy and freedom.
One more nail in the coffin of being able to transact in ways either unknown to or unapproved by the state.
In 2011 I spoke at the CCC about why it’s essential to have free and censorship-resistant payments that the state cannot veto:
Always use and carry cash. Always tip in cash. Don’t do business with places that don’t accept cash. Store some cash in your home and your car (hidden) for emergencies.
I can believe it. Both parties are pretty "law and order" and rely on relationships with the police. Why piss off an important group of people for an issue that isn't going to sway any votes.
Reform here is something which would presumably have a large amount of support but that's enough to get a law passed or the US would look very different, there are tons of popular things that will never be laws.
Same reason it took half a century for every other rights violation to get in front of a court that matters. The agencies and governments violating people's rights play all sorts of games to prevent it so that they can keep the gravy train rolling.
Corruption is a large part of what funds our criminal justice system, and politicians will never do anything to make them appear like they are against law enforcement or "soft on crime".
> How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point?
Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals? I’m almost ready to PAC an elected prosecutor who commits to taking a test case to SCOTUS.
The Wire is a great show, but it’s still copaganda. Dude managed to create a five year show set in the Baltimore Police Department without mentioning racism once.
It has its roots in something very necessary: disposal of abandoned property, especially illegal goods for which no owner can be identified. Of course it has gotten slightly out of hand.
This guy looks familiar from a video on YouTube of the traffic stop and cash seizure. If this in fact is the same guy and case from that video, I wonder what would’ve happened had this not been videotaped / posted online as I’m sure 99% of these similar scenarios are not.
Civil forfeiture in the usa really is ridiculous, and I wish it would be radically changed/banned.
If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten goods.
I thought he was way better pre-covid-- at least showed empathy for differing views, acknowledged some tradeoffs, etc. He turned very one dimensional during covid and never recovered.
We need a database of any cop, lawyer, prosecutor or judge that participates in this type of bullshit. Identify, track, punish! Tyrants have home addresses!
The fact that we read about single instances like this means some important things are not that fucked. Namely reporting on police misconduct happened and finally the money was returned.
Looking at this the US is not particularly fucked. I wish I could set a higher bar for the world, but don't expect this to change fast.
This. In my country a stop for a traffic offense is more likely to be for a bribe than for a ticket and if they found the money the officers would just keep it for themselves.
On the other hand we clearly have much better banks the the USA does. Out of interest why other than crime or dodging tax would you ever carry large amounts of cash rather than just do a bank transfer?
It's amazing how the presumption of innocence – one of the pillars of a fair justice system – has eroded away in the popular consciousness in the last few decades. I'm not sure what inspires takes like this beyond sheer callousness, to simply not wonder what happens to those wrongfully convicted/affected by prejudice. Thinking they did it isn't knowing, and it certainly isn't enough to justify ruining (or taking) someone's life.
I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness. I suspect that it's roughly at the same place as it was in the 1980s. I suspect the big differences that shape one's contemporary perception of the topic are the conversion of most major US-based news agencies to publishing very little but "shock and outrage" stories, and the prevalence of the Internet Hate Machine that is clickbait-promoting "social media" pushing rage-and/or-sorrow-inducing stories in one's face.
But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
Exactly. And the appropriate "safeguard" is conviction of a crime. At sentencing, it would be appropriate for a court to consider whether some amount of money constitutes the proceeds of a crime, and what the appropriate disposition of that money would be to best provided restitution to those harmed by the crime. And if there is some belief that something might happen to the assets before then, we have processes like preliminary injunctions, which have a high burden of proof. Until one of those things happens, there are no grounds to justify seizure of any assets.
Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank. Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen.
At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".
One of the more insidious versions of this is the static thresholds for things like "a suspiciously large amount of cash", which are not inflation adjusted, causing them to effectively shrink over time. A $10K cash travel limit established by the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 would be over $80K in 2025 dollars. The law is structured so that the net is constantly tightening by default.
> When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing.
It's already happening, and it probably just depends on the teller you get. I have no idea if it's policy or not, but I've been questioned pretty intrusively for cash transactions even under the reporting limit of 10k (see: BSA, CTR).
That limit was reduced to $500 and then back up to $2000. It's a multifaceted thing, now, that triggers a SAR.
https://www.fincen.gov/fact-sheet-industry-msb-suspicious-ac...
You are probably questioned more about cash transactions under the reporting limit. Over the reporting limit they file a form. Under they have to determine if they need to file a form.
1 reply →
The EU literally got rid of the 500 Euro bank note because it was primarily used by criminals for evading the law.
5 replies →
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality.
Already true in Brazil where I live.
It's just the financial arm of global warrantless mass surveillance. I highly recommend not allowing them to do this to you.
Brazilian central bank developed a digital centralized money transfer system called pix. You already know where this is going, right? At first it was great: instant, zero fees, no taxes. Right now the entire nation is angry about the fact our IRS equivalent will start using the pix transaction data to cross reference and audit citizens. If you move more than ~800 USD your financial data gets sent to the government automatically.
I like to believe that Brazil is some kind of test bed for dystopian nonsense like this.
They already did it with credit card, I'm actually surprised that they weren't already doing that, not sure if I understand the issue
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality.
Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
Are you sure the "any amount" generalization is true? I know in Switzerland of money confiscated at border control for simple suspicion, but we are talking (tens of) thousands. Although there's a certain obligation of declaration those people always "forget", that situation stays shitty, but in any case it's a very very far cry from "any amount".
15 replies →
While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
9 replies →
Non-sovereign subjects can't be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money...
The reserve requirement comment feels out of place. Banks don’t keep their reserve requirements in physical cash.
The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.
It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
>It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object
That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
7 replies →
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
10 replies →
This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.
1 reply →
It gets pretty messed up when the police can take custody of an entire house because someone once had drugs there.
There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.
1 reply →
>> the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply
That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.
SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013).
Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest.
It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")
Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
1 reply →
Then I should be able to sue the police departments property. Gosub100 vs copcar. They can then file a claim to get it back from me.
1 reply →
> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply.
The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property".
Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.
10 replies →
> accusing an inanimate object (the money itself)
yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason
It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
That is sophistry.
It appears that the law is full of totally BS circumventions like this, that only make sense as abuse of the spirit of the law.
Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...
1 reply →
"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"
Imagine if the same logic was used for a criminal defense: "Your honor, I didn't kill $VICTIM, it was the $WEAPON that killed $VICTIM".
>unlike some other countries
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
21 replies →
> pretty universal around the globe
except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.
5 replies →
Civil asset forfeiture isn't different in its principles. It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc. Essentially, this is an ex parte action against the asset forcing the owner to prove ownership in order to get legal standing to challenge in the court. It's a terrible system, but it utilizes the same principles found in other Civil laws. These lack of protections is why people push back on things like red flag laws and why legislatures are increasingly looking to use these to bypass things in the criminal side (see TX trying to allow actions against abortion seekers, or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
>> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc.
That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.
> or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
But doesn't the CA law explicitly acknowledge this by saying if the TX law is ever knocked back the CA law automatically becomes null and void?
4 replies →
Forfeiture is different from seizure. Seizure is perfectly legal, and even ought to be required pending completion of a court case.
Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on seized property.
I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process. However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
I recommend reading 983 article guidelines for asset forfeiture/seizure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983
It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are not so speedy anymore.
I'm not a lawyer of course
As you note it's not built into other legal systems. In which case, those other legal systems aren't automatically corrupt or based on extortion.
A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the protection of citizens, etc.
Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like Roman justice.
This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should.
> a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should
And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
3 replies →
I'm afraid that this happened, where it is so plainly and fundamentally wrong, expresses that something is fundamentally wrong with the police, and I think it is across the USA? as this behaviour is I think widespread?
We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police don't consider normal). The seized items were either being actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house with no other explanation)
It's a very US thing that for every fine principle such as presumption of innocence, there is an equal and opposite "loophole" or way to bend the rules, that is allowed to make that principle far less effective.
That's not a US thing, that's an every country everywhere thing.
9 replies →
Another example would be the fine principle of democracy, and the loopholes of gerrymandering and selective voter suppression.
It makes more sense when you ask "Who bears the burden of these loopholes?" and the answer is always "They disadvantage people of colour".
> The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence.
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
Sorry, but civil forfeiture is 'civil' not legal. The US Justice system has completely bypassed all kind of US Level systems controls/protections simply by reclassifying them as 'civil' not 'criminal' because our protections only apply to 'criminal' law, such as the huge differences in the standards for a finding of guilt between civil and criminal law.
> Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption
I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
>It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power.
I'll add taxes to the list.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
>http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
Nice cartoon on the government.
Letting police forces retain any of the proceeds of their activities seems like a really bad idea.
Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency.
I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
It's written in a referenced article (https://ij.org/case/nevada-civil-forfeiture/):
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
The part about the receipts I had missed.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
10 replies →
Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
> laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes
Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
26 replies →
My preference is 100% of fines and siezed property should go to the Social Security Administration.
Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.
I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed to directly benefit the police or the government they represent.
Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.
Or destroy the cash in public.
The police should not be financially incentivized to enforce any aspect of the law, because it leads directly to corruption. CMV?
> CMV?
Convince me…variably? Cytomegalovirus?
Reddit lingo. Change My View.
6 replies →
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CMV says 'Change My View', though 'Catch My Vibe' also works here.
[flagged]
why would I do that? :p
Why not? If you want good meat, give financial incentives to your butcher. If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police. The problem isn't the presence of financial incentives, but badly designed financial incentives.
> If you want good policing, give financial incentives to your police.
But civil asset forfeiture isn't incentivizing good policing.
1 reply →
If your SRE gets a bonus every time they fix an issue in production, you would start incentivizing them to make sure production has lots of issues they can easily fix and get their bonus.
If you de-incentivize them every time there is a problem, they will instead try to hide problems.
How do you come up with fair incentivization?
The problem’s deeper than that: and financial incentive you design, you provide a financial incentive to abuse it. This is why so few people recommend metric-based compensation.
3 replies →
Depends on the definition of the financial incentive. If it means bonus, then this doesn't handle cases of incompetence or malice, they will still get their salary. If that includes salary too e.g. financial penalties, then you'll get police doing things specifically to preserve their salary and instead of focusing on their core responsibilities.
Just carrots, whatever the definition, won't fix everything, there are assholes in every profession, you need sticks too.
How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.
Everyone viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the state has stopped using cash, so leaving this in place as an additional risk to carrying or using cash is a nice bonus in the war against financial privacy and freedom.
One more nail in the coffin of being able to transact in ways either unknown to or unapproved by the state.
In 2011 I spoke at the CCC about why it’s essential to have free and censorship-resistant payments that the state cannot veto:
https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...
Always use and carry cash. Always tip in cash. Don’t do business with places that don’t accept cash. Store some cash in your home and your car (hidden) for emergencies.
I can believe it. Both parties are pretty "law and order" and rely on relationships with the police. Why piss off an important group of people for an issue that isn't going to sway any votes.
Reform here is something which would presumably have a large amount of support but that's enough to get a law passed or the US would look very different, there are tons of popular things that will never be laws.
Same reason it took half a century for every other rights violation to get in front of a court that matters. The agencies and governments violating people's rights play all sorts of games to prevent it so that they can keep the gravy train rolling.
Corruption is a large part of what funds our criminal justice system, and politicians will never do anything to make them appear like they are against law enforcement or "soft on crime".
First party who would propose it would lose support for cops/justice system workers.
> How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point?
Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals? I’m almost ready to PAC an elected prosecutor who commits to taking a test case to SCOTUS.
> Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals?
Not really, cases on civil forfeiture do make it to the US Supreme Court, the most recent case being decided in 2024.
1 reply →
If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why
I read that as "those who watch it already know".
Could you or someone else share what’s shown in that series? I’m not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.
4 replies →
The Wire is a great show, but it’s still copaganda. Dude managed to create a five year show set in the Baltimore Police Department without mentioning racism once.
1 reply →
It has its roots in something very necessary: disposal of abandoned property, especially illegal goods for which no owner can be identified. Of course it has gotten slightly out of hand.
But most abandoned property doesn't go through that process, does it?
6 replies →
This guy looks familiar from a video on YouTube of the traffic stop and cash seizure. If this in fact is the same guy and case from that video, I wonder what would’ve happened had this not been videotaped / posted online as I’m sure 99% of these similar scenarios are not. Civil forfeiture in the usa really is ridiculous, and I wish it would be radically changed/banned.
It seems especially ironic that this would happen in Nevada, where carrying large amounts of cash is much more normal due to the gambling industry.
And it only took them how long to do this?
If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten goods.
John Oliver did a section on Civil Forfeiture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
A lot of folks don't like him (politics, but he can also be a rather shrill person).
He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical.
I thought he was way better pre-covid-- at least showed empathy for differing views, acknowledged some tradeoffs, etc. He turned very one dimensional during covid and never recovered.
> He does his homework, though, and his main stories are often apolitical.
His team of researchers and comedians (ex college humor alumns) do the research and it comes out of his off-putting mouth and face.
Not to worry, they'll turn political again in a few weeks when every single negative event in the world will be blamed on the president.
We need a database of any cop, lawyer, prosecutor or judge that participates in this type of bullshit. Identify, track, punish! Tyrants have home addresses!
USA is truly a fucked up country
The fact that we read about single instances like this means some important things are not that fucked. Namely reporting on police misconduct happened and finally the money was returned.
Looking at this the US is not particularly fucked. I wish I could set a higher bar for the world, but don't expect this to change fast.
This. In my country a stop for a traffic offense is more likely to be for a bribe than for a ticket and if they found the money the officers would just keep it for themselves.
On the other hand we clearly have much better banks the the USA does. Out of interest why other than crime or dodging tax would you ever carry large amounts of cash rather than just do a bank transfer?
1 reply →
[flagged]
It's amazing how the presumption of innocence – one of the pillars of a fair justice system – has eroded away in the popular consciousness in the last few decades. I'm not sure what inspires takes like this beyond sheer callousness, to simply not wonder what happens to those wrongfully convicted/affected by prejudice. Thinking they did it isn't knowing, and it certainly isn't enough to justify ruining (or taking) someone's life.
I'm not sure that the presumption of innocence has eroded away in the popular consciousness. I suspect that it's roughly at the same place as it was in the 1980s. I suspect the big differences that shape one's contemporary perception of the topic are the conversion of most major US-based news agencies to publishing very little but "shock and outrage" stories, and the prevalence of the Internet Hate Machine that is clickbait-promoting "social media" pushing rage-and/or-sorrow-inducing stories in one's face.
But, yeah, it's deeply disappointing for people to say "Wow, what a strange thing for that guy to be doing. Clearly he's up to no good, should be stopped immediately, and have his property confiscated."... when the thing that the fellow is doing inflicts no actual harm on anyone at all.
7 replies →
[dead]
Possession of money should not be a crime. Not everyone with money is “shady”.
Exactly. And the appropriate "safeguard" is conviction of a crime. At sentencing, it would be appropriate for a court to consider whether some amount of money constitutes the proceeds of a crime, and what the appropriate disposition of that money would be to best provided restitution to those harmed by the crime. And if there is some belief that something might happen to the assets before then, we have processes like preliminary injunctions, which have a high burden of proof. Until one of those things happens, there are no grounds to justify seizure of any assets.
[dead]
>Possession of money should not be a crime.
Cash has been illegal for a long time, and it's not just civil forfeiture that makes it illegal. Your bank has been deputized to spy on you if you deposit sums above a limit, at the limit, and "below the limit" (that's structuring also a crime). Other "negotiable instruments" have been outlawed, so that if you want to carry around your wealth, you have to do it in (at most) $100 increments, and they have threatened all my life to stop printing those and bump it down to $20. Meanwhile, in the last two decades we've had two major incidents where if you deposited the money anyway, it could just disappear out from under you without any real guarantees. And when none of that is enough to deter you, they inflate it away day after day until 20 years later it is worth only half of what it used to be. The strong-armed the swiss into no longer offering numbered accounts 30 years ago now. These things aren't coincidences. Money is very much illegal.
13 replies →