Hacker News Reader

Comment by hapless | Hacker News Reader

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along.

I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed.

Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, and we have no way of knowing how much more was lost to extra-legal demands that didn't pass through C.A.F. proceedings.

-------------

We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort to un-make that monster.

View on HN

> In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along.

No, it doesn't say that.

It says that the funds were seized with the explicitly stated intent to pursue forfeiture, and also a drug and money laundering investigation was threatened, with surrendering the funds (presumably, meaning not fighting CAF) given as an alternative to the investigation being pursued.

This isn't “CAF is an extra-legal process” this is the very-legal criminal process being used as a stick to threaten with to undermine the integrity of the equally-legal civil asset forfeiture process, because federal rules allow local law enforcement agencies to keep a share of federal-law seizures the local agency participated in (while most state forfeiture laws dedicate funds to the State general fund and not to the seizing agency), exacerbated by the use of cross-sworn local officers in airports, the chokepoint nature of airports on travel, etc.

> it began with an extra-legal demand

That's not what happened. The quote from FoxNews reporter was: "Then offers the man a way out: surrender his cash & no investigation"

This does not mean the officer was planning on pocketing the money personally. This likely still would have been considered a seizure under asset forfeiture.

I agree that it should be entirely legal to carry around hundreds of thousands in cash, but the reality is that it looks very suspicious for someone who's been previously convicted of a felony drug conviction carrying around hundreds of thousands in small bills.

Asset forfeiture is a mixed bag. You have to appear in court prove the money was not gained through illegal means. The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial).

It's important to remember that every state is different - as is the Fed gov't.

In any case, it is absolutely not "extra-legal". That's nonsense. Asset forfeiture is literally codified in almost every state.

"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it.

I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary problem in this clusterfuck. The fact that officers and departments, generally, can benefit from arbitrary harassment of citizens is the main problem. The final disposition of the stolen money is secondary.

> "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand

No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime.

Remember that officers can lie during interrogations.

> I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically.

Well that's what makes it legal or not. If the officer pocketed it, then it's illegal. If the gov't did it using the law of asset forfeiture, then it's literally LEGAL.

You are conflating "illegal" with "immoral".

>to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime

No, it was used as a form of intimidation. I.e. give me the money or else I'm going to use the power of the state to systematically go through your life and fuck with you and people you know via an investigation

>then it's literally LEGAL

Who cares if it's legal or not? it's an extremely immoral and unjust way to handle law enforcement. The fact that it's legal is a blemish on the legal system that undermines the respect people should have for it.

> it was used as a form of intimidation

Correct - which is a common tactic in law enforcement. That is why people are advised to shut up until they speak to their lawyer.

> Who cares if it's legal or not?

The people above describing it incorrectly as illegal.

> a blemish on the legal system

No. It would be a blemish on the legislators who wrote the law, and those who voted for them. The legal system enforces laws - it is not meant to judge ethics.

You are seriously misreading the story at hand.

https://www.fox46.com/news/investigations/government-seizes-...

The threatened "investigation" in was the civil asset forfeiture procedure. They were asking him to voluntarily surrender the money, or else they would initiate civil asset forfeiture. In other words, law enforcement officers offered the victim a choice between plans A and B.

Plan A was the extra-legal course: give us your money, and we'll forget we ever had this discussion. This was the officer's preferred outcome. Free money, minimum paperwork.

Plan B was what actually happened: the civil asset forfeiture process. The victim refused to sign the papers, so everything goes to court, and then the government has to come up with something, at least a notional reason, to take the money.

However you read the laws around civil asset forfeiture, I am pretty sure that "plan A" was not an intended part of the picture.

Uncontested can mean two different things, either the action was right, or even if it's wrong, you won't get your stuff back.

Also, you can't skip work to go contest it because you won't be able to pay your bills.

I'd guess that one covers most cases and that police target people who can't afford to take time off to go to court

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.

It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in this manner is irresistible bait for cops -- folks are rightly intimidated, because cops can generally make your life hell through perfectly legal procedures.

And, actually, poor people frequently don't trust banks and will keep their life savings in cash. That can easily be tens of thousands of dollars, it only takes putting away $500 a year for 20 years. Do you think they're gonna have adequate records to prove that all of that was legal income?

> And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice

You don't generally have to “prove your innocence”, the burden of proof in federal forfeiture is on the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 USC § 983(c)

The only case where you would have to prove your innocence is for the “innocent owner” affirmative defense that applies only after the government has met that burden; that is, where the government proves then seized property was, e.g., used in crime, but you assert that as the owner, you were either unaware of the use of the property in the crime or did everything reasonable to stop it being used in crime once you became aware. 18 USC § 983(d). It obviously isn’t an issue when the theory of forfeiture charged and proven by the government is your crime.

One other aspect is that it's often not even fiscally reasonable to attempt to get the cash back. The costs of an attorney to take the case often outweigh the value of the cash seized. This means many times the only options are to give up on the cash, or try to do it yourself. Doing it yourself means even more time investment, and a lower expected return.

There is no way this isn't a significant factor in how many people leave the seizure uncontested. I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything uncontested is drug money.

> The fact that most asset forfeitures go uncontested is telling that a lot of them, IMO, are probably indeed drug money (this is obviously controversial).

Is this just pure speculation? You seem to be making this claim with no evidence whatsoever. There are many reasons cases might go uncontested. For example, the individual might not have the means to pursue the case. There are innumerable other possibilities as well.

> We've made law enforcement into a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves

I think this should read:

> We've deputized thousands of squabbling gangs of thieves, and given them the "special powers" of law enforcement

This CAF stuff is an expected and reasonable byproduct of that starting condition.

"How do we fix law enforcement then?"

You don't. Disband it. It's a recent creation, obviously a "failed experiment" (from the perspective of 'does LE promote a fair and safe society').

LE _isn't_ a failed experiment from the perspective of rent-seeking LE, but, well, dictatorships work out great for the dictators.

We've officially authorized law enforcement to be a thousand squabbling gangs of thieves. This is not to say they weren't already. So un-making the fact will be much harder.

Without authorization, the cop would have stolen the money anyway. The law just makes victims more resigned to it -- if the money goes regardless, the cop might just as well get it. Maybe they'll even take less, that way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com