generally no need for a warrant to search a car - carroll doctrine. Cop has PC, you can consent, or not...doesnt really matter.

asset forfeiture... yes, the property can be indicted in court w/o criminal charges against the "owner"

no the gov't cant just keep property forever w/o cause, yes I know for a fact that it does get returned if appropriate (even if a person is in fact convicted of a crime)

all these people posting in the thread, and I didn't see one personal story...just more internet "this happened to this guy i heard about's friends brothers boss who owned a trucking company and had $xxx.xxxx in his possession b/c (insert reason this persons an idiot and carries that amount of cash "

if it walks, talks, acts, shits like a duck.... duck is thy name until you prove you aren't a duck

Quies custodiet ipsos custodes

9/1/2007 1:08:33 AM

^That's a little confusingly stated. Are you saying "If there is PC or RAS then consent is not needed" or are you saying "None of that matters"?
Manufacturing PC or RAS is a crime isn't it

9/1/2007 6:39:53 AM

furthermore, the cop will have to illustrate his PC to the court or anything he finds will be thrown out

9/1/2007 8:02:00 AM

only if it goes to trial though

right?

most of these people aren't even charged though

does that even factor into police accountability?

9/1/2007 8:45:39 AM

^
That's correct. The property itself is the crime...too much money in a car for example. Property is confiscated and then it is up to you to prove to the authorities that the property is "innocent"

9/1/2007 11:41:13 AM

guilty until proven innocent, lovely.

9/1/2007 11:49:46 AM

well, how about instead of bitching on the internet, you vote for somebody who will pass a law banning the police from seizing large amounts of suspicious cash

9/1/2007 12:50:04 PM

Quote :

"Cop has PC, you can consent, or not...doesnt really matter"

sorry, if confusing then add and "IF" to the front of my statement

If the cop has pc for a search of a mobile conveyance, then you can consent, or you can refuse...doesnt matter



for asset forfeiture, the gov't must still prove its case against the property - there is still judicial review unless the person/entity w/ interest in said property consents to the forfeiture. If (you) weren't doing anything wrong, and can prove you earned the money legitimately, then don't be stupid - don't consent to the forfeiture. Really isn't that hard to understand.


crime pays

9/1/2007 1:07:07 PM

Quote :

"instead of bitching on the internet, you vote for somebody who will pass a law..."

You mean somebody not in the major two parties then, right?

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats want to appear "weak on crime", so they'll never do it.

None of the leading candidates for the next election want to end this drug war crap.

I've voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate 3 times.

Yet, I still feel the need to bitch.

Do you not understand why?

9/1/2007 1:43:06 PM

i understand that fully 2% of the population on TWW are gonna go vote this year

9/4/2007 7:15:38 AM

Quote :

"for asset forfeiture, the gov't must still prove its case against the property - there is still judicial review unless the person/entity w/ interest in said property consents to the forfeiture."

and how does one "consent" to the forfeiture, exactly? By letting the cop take it?

And then if you DON'T let the cop take it, he'll claim some bullshit charge of obstruction of a police officer or something, so you are fucked either way. I'm sorry, but this situation is bullshit no matter how you paint it. If you "consent" to it, then there is no judicial review. So, the cops just pressure you to "consent," or even coerce you to do it. And then there is no review, not even of the coercion...

9/4/2007 8:58:27 PM

Quote :

"the seatbelt isnt a good analogy here because mandatory use reduces costs for everyone"

not really. seatbelts increase vehicle production costs, the cost of increased patroling/ticketing, increased cost of operating courts, and the list goes on...

9/4/2007 9:12:36 PM

all those costs still have to be less than health care for people that are fucked up because they didnt use their seat belt

how much did it cost to fix you up? granted that you dont really work well as an example, but it if was 1/2 or 1/3 for a person in a car, that shit would add up

9/4/2007 9:43:15 PM

^^^ exactly, they'll present the idea like it's your only option. if you do try to say no they'll claim you were obstructing justice.

not to mention that until there's some kind of trial they can pretty much take whatever they want.. you can't even prove they're doing something they shouldn't do until you get in front of a judge and that can take quite a while.. trust me.

9/4/2007 9:46:42 PM

^^ Not to be picky, but it has only been demonstrated that seat belts save lives, not money. Seat belts and other safety equipment make drivers feel safer, so they are willing to drive more recklessly and cause more accidents. Now, over the long term this has saved lives because the cars really are safer, you can almost survive any car accident now.

But in the beginning, immediately after congress created a whole host of safety regulations for automobiles, it wracked up a mighty death toll because new car owners felt safer and thus drove faster or recklessly, getting into more accidents with other older unsafe car owners, which invariably died.

Back on the long term, it has undeniably saved lives, just at the consequence of a higher accident rate. This drove up society's costs in terms of repairing or replacing vehicles, higher insurance premiums, time spent resolving accidents and the resultant legal disputes, disruption of traffic flow, etc.

But don't get me wrong, the rise of safe automobiles was a great thing. If we want to drive recklessly today we can do so without the fear of being killed. The liberation and peace of mind alone is well worth the higher costs. I couldn't imagine driving around in a death trap and how boring it would be to always be second guessing my maneuvers, always afraid of killing myself by passing on the right, driving too fast for the conditions, or trying to hold a conversation. But I must also acknowledge the negative effects of changed incentives, even if I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

An economist once wrote that if we wanted to reduce automobile accidents then all cars should be modified to have a metal spike aimed square at the drivers heart. While this would undoubtedly encourage safe driving habbits, I would refuse to drive such a vehicle.

9/4/2007 11:31:00 PM

I drive pretty cautiously and always wear my seatbelt.

Some folks who drives recklessly refuse to wear it.

It depends.

Overall, though, I'm sure your right, as silly as it seems.

9/5/2007 10:23:40 AM

Quote :

"and how does one "consent" to the forfeiture, exactly? By letting the cop take it? And then if you DON'T let the cop take it, he'll claim some bullshit charge of obstruction of a police officer or something, so you are fucked either way. I'm sorry, but this situation is bullshit no matter how you paint it. If you "consent" to it, then there is no judicial review. So, the cops just pressure you to "consent," or even coerce you to do it. And then there is no review, not even of the coercion... "

no, they sign a form that states they consent to the forfeiture.

You folks are assuming that these scenarios involve little old ladys (or innocent truck drivers ) carrying huge quantities of cash .... some greedy copy sees this and wants the money. Does that happen? perhaps occasionally ( I don't know of any profession that employs 100% angels)

However, let me present a scenario - drug sting involving 5 tons of marijuana, "buyer" shows up to pay for same with a "large quantity of cash" concealed in a partially filled box of powdered detergent (6 fig's $$$, he's only paying for transportation - not purchase price). Walks through the public parking lot to complete the transaction and take possession, and is arrested.

How the heck would you not consent to the seizure of your cash? You're really going to bother getting an attorney for your money? Innocent people really walk around w/ enough money to pay cash for a house concealed inside a detergent box? (totality of the circumstances)


Or -

someone w/ absolutely no employment whatsoever, tax returns indicate no job/salary/earnings -welfare only , living in a 600K house making average monthly deposits of 60k for several years .... combine that w/ criminal act = house, bank accounts, luxury cars - all seized. You get a chance to defend and prove your legitimate income - but you know you can't b/c it's all money from criminal activity.... what do you do? You can't defend your income w/o showing your cards and helping prove the criminal case.... so you consent to forfeiture and effectively kill that road into your criminal enterprise for investigators. Or you try to make up a source for your income and don't consent, in which case the gov't investigates and either proves you are lying or gives it all back.


If you prove that you got a huge insurance settlement years ago when your wife killed herself and had it made to cash, and were keeping it in a safe in your house along w/ narcotics for sales and your stash of stolen firearms, you just might get it back along w/ your armored BMW 850 and mercedes luxury cars (true scenario). (forfeiture isn't a sure thing, and its not as easy as people think - just like wiretaps)

9/5/2007 10:59:42 AM

speaking of wiretaps.. the new law effective for 180 days pretty much lets them do anything they want as long as they suspect the person you're talking to isn't in the country. same goes for email. they can look at whatever they want, without probable cause and without warrants.. only stipulation is there has to be a foreigner involved.

9/5/2007 11:56:50 AM

Quote :

"yes I know for a fact that it does get returned if appropriate "

It costs a lot of time and money to prove the seizure of your property was not "appropriate".

Quote :

"I didn't see one personal story"

I didn't jump from a burning window on 9-11, but we're all pretty sure it happened. Asset seizure is happening everyday. People are getting ripped off by the police and courts. Trying to water things down by demanding personal stories is weak.

Quote :

"Does that happen? perhaps occasionally ( I don't know of any profession that employs 100% angels)"

We shouldn't be giving politicians power to even allow the possibility of these outrages from occurring. You can call for the violation of all sorts of private property rights in the name of law and order...but it's still wrong. Under the constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty. Our property, though, is guilty and we have to spend a lot of money to prove it's innocence to get it back.

9/5/2007 12:05:09 PM

Quote :

"the seatbelt isnt a good analogy here because mandatory use reduces costs for everyone"

ban alcohol
ban guns
outlaw smoking
require 70mph governors on all cars
require all dogs to wear muzzles whenever leaving the home
shut down fast food restaurants

all of these would help everyone live a safer/healthier life and reduce costs for everyone. why don't we have the gov't enact a bunch of laws to protect people from themselves, oopss to late

9/5/2007 12:17:52 PM

Quote :

"I didn't jump from a burning window on 9-11, but we're all pretty sure it happened. Asset seizure is happening everyday. People are getting ripped off by the police and courts. Trying to water things down by demanding personal stories is weak. "

weak = comparing asset forfeiture to a horrifying decision between burning alive or falling 1000 feet and going splat

Quote :

"We shouldn't be giving politicians power to even allow the possibility of these outrages from occurring. You can call for the violation of all sorts of private property rights in the name of law and order...but it's still wrong. Under the constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty. Our property, though, is guilty and we have to spend a lot of money to prove it's innocence to get it back."

This the same constitution that lays out the courts and judicial process, and review and all that stuff? You mean that constitution?

live a clean life, don't victimize others, put more +'s in your column than -'s by the time you re-enter oblivion...

watch what is going on, get involved in changing the laws if you think its wrong, but the fact is that nobody on this website should have to ever be concerned with asset forfeiture - unless you take a law enforcement job and go forfeit some assets.

9/5/2007 5:29:44 PM

Quote :

"Innocent people really walk around w/ enough money to pay cash for a house concealed inside a detergent box?"

so in other words, having a lot of money on your person means you are automatically guilty of some crime

9/5/2007 6:50:57 PM

Quote :

"all those costs still have to be less than health care for people that are fucked up because they didnt use their seat belt"

yeah, that's partly what health care is for though. to fix me when i'm doing an activity i want to do and get hurt. i understand the argument for taking care of people that are injured and don't have health insurance, but i don't agree with it or that it's neccessarily saving anyone anything.

Quote :

"how much did it cost to fix you up? granted that you dont really work well as an example"

that's actually a great example. my bills are somewhere around $300k now, and still climbing. had i been in a car, i probably wouldn't have even been hurt or at least not nearly to the extent i was. so, by that logic, shouldn't we ban motorcycles before requiring people to wear seatbelts?

Quote :

"ban alcohol ban guns outlaw smoking require 70mph governors on all cars require all dogs to wear muzzles whenever leaving the home shut down fast food restaurants all of these would help everyone live a safer/healthier life and reduce costs for everyone. why don't we have the gov't enact a bunch of laws to protect people from themselves, oopss to late"

this basically sums up my feelings on it. where do you draw the line...

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ,]

9/5/2007 8:07:43 PM

Quote :

"so in other words, having a lot of money on your person means you are automatically guilty of some crime "

guilty, not necessarily

probable cause (51%) yup... still a long way to go for 'beyond a reasonable doubt' though so there would have to be more or (you) will get it back

if you were on a jury, would this be a piece of the puzzle that would draw your attention or not? Personally, I never had any experience carrying my money concealed in detergent....

9/5/2007 8:42:38 PM

If I were carrying six figures in cash for whatever reason, I imagine I'd try to conceal it.

That's a lot of damn money.

Of course, I don't plan on ever having that much money.

9/5/2007 10:10:19 PM

Quote :

"ban alcohol ban guns outlaw smoking require 70mph governors on all cars require all dogs to wear muzzles whenever leaving the home shut down fast food restaurants"

all of these inconvenience people much more than wearing a seat belt

nice strawman though

9/6/2007 7:55:56 PM

so, carrying around lots of money now equates to "probable cause." jeez. so much for freedom.

9/6/2007 10:48:25 PM

Quote :

"all of these inconvenience people much more than wearing a seat belt"

people died of all kind of shit a long time ago. Why does the gov't feel like it needs to be my mother and protect me from myself.

9/7/2007 10:41:28 AM

Quote :

"Dropout66: Personally, I never had any experience carrying my money concealed in detergent...."

Which is why you don't care that the government can seize money from folks. It's never gonna affect you so why should you care?

9/7/2007 11:42:15 AM

Quote :

" To expedite the process, Bradenton, Florida's Police Department devised a "Contraband Forfeiture Agreement" (.pdf) for use by officers carrying out drug enforcement raids. Citizens who sign such agreements surrender their property -- such as cash or cars -- "to the DEPARTMENT free and clear of all claims or liens"; they also waive their due process rights. In exchange, the police agree not to prosecute."

I live just south of Bradenton in Sarasota, thanks for the heads up

9/8/2007 9:11:46 PM

Quote :

"people died of all kind of shit a long time ago. Why does the gov't feel like it needs to be my mother and protect me from myself."

Because they would rather not invest in you and then have you die early, thats why.

9/8/2007 10:41:28 PM

haha seriously tho...

its fucking dumb to carry around 24,000 in cash

9/8/2007 11:50:45 PM

^^"invest"?

WTF are you talking about?

We're not the governments children, property, investments or subjects.

The government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed.

WE are the government. It works for US.

It is OF us. We are not OF it.

What is it that you don't understand about liberty and justice?

Why do you hate America?

Are you seriously that dumb?





^
too bad that has nothing to do with anything...

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to rob idiots"

9/9/2007 9:36:50 AM

^ it IS the govt's job to make it hard for criminal enterprises to function, ergo asset forfeiture as another speed bump

Quote :

"Which is why you don't care that the government can seize money from folks. It's never gonna affect you so why should you care? "

I care, I actually have experience w/ the process, and I actually know how it works and that it isn't quite as simple as all the chickenlittle's claim.

It will never affect me personally, because I don't run a criminal enterprise and my assets are not gained through criminal activity. I actually have a job and can prove where my money comes from.

But, as "V" stated : "People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people"

(I still say that while the entire US crim. justice system is far from perfect, it's lightyears ahead of what most every other country has in place)

9/9/2007 3:26:46 PM

thousands of dollars seized in gabling bust

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1793715/

9/9/2007 3:44:48 PM

DARWIN IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

9/9/2007 6:36:14 PM

^^^If you were involved in the process at hand, then you were part of a criminal enterprise.

Congrats, douchebag.

9/9/2007 8:21:11 PM

Quote :

"^ it IS the govt's job to make it hard for criminal enterprises to function, ergo asset forfeiture as another speed bump"

i bet this kid was a hall monitor in middle school and was the guy that complained to the RA when he smelled "marijuana" coming from one of the rooms on his hall.

9/9/2007 8:42:15 PM

Quote :

"WE are the government. It works for US. It is OF us. We are not OF it. What is it that you don't understand about liberty and justice? Why do you hate America? Are you seriously that dumb?"

Oh, you're right. We are the government. We should do away with ourselves, encourage total liberty, freedom, and lawlessness, and watch the chaos begin. How fun would that be?

#1 Stop construing every little comment anyone makes here as the downfall of society
#2 Stop trying to take that construed comment and spew your verbal diarrhea in double space like what you have to say is more important or novel than it really is.
#3 Shut the fuck up

9/9/2007 11:20:35 PM

^
oh, so you ARE that dumb
you talk about "total liberty" when no one else is
you think liberty leads to chaos
you forget the responsibility and ethics part
you think libertarians want to eliminate the government
you see? you're fucking clueless.
why don't you shut the fuck up
I mean, shit, look at what you said:

Quote :

"Because [the gov't] would rather not invest in you and then have you die early, thats why [the gov't feels like it needs to be my mother and protect me from myself by enforcing seat belt laws]."

you can't defend that statement and it's too late to edit it
It is NOT the proper function of government to consider citizens "investments"
It is NOT the proper function of government to forcibly prevent a civil liberty that is dangerous only to oneself
You lose.
OMG SINGLE SPACE VERBAL DIARRHEA

9/10/2007 7:31:42 AM

I lost on the int4rn3ts, what should I do now? Log off? Kill myself? Not care?

9/10/2007 8:05:52 AM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK ^^^If you were involved in the process at hand, then you were part of a criminal enterprise. Congrats, douchebag."

Quote :

"HURi bet this kid was a hall monitor in middle school and was the guy that complained to the RA when he smelled "marijuana" coming from one of the rooms on his hall."

i cant beat this level of intellect, gg , the thread is yours

9/10/2007 10:27:38 AM

VICTORY!!!

9/10/2007 1:57:34 PM