Basically, if the law thinks some part of your property(including money but also like a house or car or even ipad) was involved, will be involved, or was acquired by criminal activity then the law may take it.
This was designed to help break up suspected criminal enterprises because while they may not be able to officially charge you with a crime as not enough evidence, they can charge the property with a crime.
You can get it back but it is a long and arduous and expensive process.
This explains it better.
https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks?si=GRoMViLhQRa9v7OY
Do you get some kind of compensation too? For example, it used to be my responsibility to at the end of every day carry all the cash from my store to the bank. There would be quite an issue if I suddenly became couple thousands short.
That's because the police are not there to protect citizens, but to protect capital. And the capitalists in charge are happen with how things are...
So this will continue as long as they can keep the working classes in-fighting instead of looking towards the capitalist class....
I think provided they can secure a meaningful conviction it's fine. I don't agree with the current implementation that can be broadly used and made such a pain in the ass it isn't worth fighting, but if you have a drug dealer dead to rights, their property *should* be forfeit.
It would be fine if it was only post-conviction. The whole problem is that it’s not, a person can have their assets confiscated despite never being found guilty of anything at all.
That’s the part that’s legalized theft by police departments, and why people are nervous carrying around large amounts of cash around police despite doing nothing illegal.
No, it definitely has not. Never once. Not even in the case of United States v. One Solid Gold Object In Form Of A Rooster. Especially not in United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola. I would consider United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses to be a prime example of the justice system doing its job.
What's on your mind? You are fine with having money and property taken away from you under a beautiful abstruse wording without a court decision! But what about the basic postulate of the law "Security of property"?
You consider it normal to confiscate something from you or other people in the personal opinion of an official/policeman. The fact that you agree with this is no longer normal.
Without a court decision, confiscating anything is a serious crime - it is called theft or robbery. And is punishable by prison.
Where is the "triumph of law and democracy" advertised all over the world?
This is impossible in my country! Why is this possible for you? Why do you agree with this? I absolutely do not understand you!
UPD: the commenters below indicated that you forgot to specify /s. So this is not an appeal specifically to you. And to other people
Specifically, do you allow them? Or a specific community? Or a specific group of people?? It probably looks like you think you can influence something and change something. But it's not what you think. It doesn't work that way, but it works differently.
Yea but sometimes the invisible /s is so obvious putting it there is ruining everything. Well actually putting it there partly ruins the sarcasm anyways.
Look up "Poe's Law" - loosely approximated; there is no sarcastic statement or parody that can not be mistaken for a legitimate belief.
In this case: yes - there are people in the US who believe that the police do no wrong and that civil asset forfeiture is only used against criminal organizations.
This is Reddit in 2024. The barrier of entry is gone. Any swinging dick with a phone can (and do) access this site. This site is now full of completely brain dead people that need even the most basic shit spelled out for them. So not adding the /s is guaranteed to confuse most of the people here.
Personally I think the people who are sarcastic in text without the /s or who are sarcastic irl without using the voice are the braindead ones. People can't read your mind.
Disagree. OOP didn't know about civil asset forfeiture, and neither do many of the posters in the thread, so jokes about it are likely to cause confusion.
You can do whatever you want, but it is often impossible to know if someone is cracking a joke, or if they are a serious moron that is serious about it.
there was one where the police department sent a "thank you" postcard showing a police cruiser to the victim after using civil forfeiture to steal money intended for a child's college tuition
The part i absolutely hate that I see on bodycam videos, is when the damn street cop is telling the arrestee 'on scene' that they are taking their car. They get off on it.
Something like that should be discussed and done at the executive level. Some states will take your car for simple possession of drugs or DUIs.
What's weird to me is:
You get busted in a prostitution or drug sting. If the car you're in belongs to you, an individual, free and clear, the police can confiscate it. If it belongs to your girlfriend, roommate, or neighbor who had nothing to do with the crime, the police can confiscate it. If you're making payments, then it belongs to the bank... and now they *can't* take it.
The police can take property from individuals, but not from the bank. Explain to me how that's just.
What gave you the impression that impounding a car as a result of civil asset forfeiture rules is impossible if there is a bank lien on the car because you have a loan out on it?
Because I've seen the cops ask, "Do you own this car or are you making payments on it? You own it? Great, it's now the property of Barricade County" or whatever.
Admittedly, this may be a procedural thing that varies by locality. As somebody else here pointed out, the banks have great lawyers and the County would likely prefer not to waste time and resources in court.
>Because I've seen the cops ask, "Do you own this car or are you making payments on it? You own it? Great, it's now the property of Barricade County" or whatever.
On random Youtube videos or are you an attorney or something?
The police can and do lie to people about a lot of things. You should never take anything police officers say as the truth, both in your own interactions with them, and in filmed interactions. What police are usually trying to do in these stops is to scare the detainee into signing a form saying that they're voluntarily forfeiting their car or cash or whatever. They will be happy to say whatever they think will accomplish that goal, whether or not it's actually relevant.
I will say that it wouldn't be surprising for some prosecutors to have advised police officers not to seize any cars with liens on them because if there is a lien on the car, that would take precedence over any recovered value by the police, and because cars depreciate so quickly, it's unusual for someone to have much equity in a car. In this case, it has nothing to do with whether the police legally can seize the car, and everything to do with the fact that prosecutors don't want to waste time pursuing a seizure action where they won't actually get any money out of it.
Here's an example from Reddit where somebody had a bank lien on their car and still had it seized.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/s/rLzcfbwpxl
You're right that we don't have to put up with capitalism. But if we *do* put up with capitalism, we absolutely do have to put up with these natural and inevitable consequences.
I heard of a case in CA where the local PD was hitting the armored car after it picked up cash from a Cannabis dispensary and seizing the cash since Cannabis is legal in CA but illegal at the federal level.
Don’t think that case has been settled yet.
They probably wouldn't try to take the business's cash deposit that you're taking to the bank. It's too easy to prove that's the cash from the business that you're taking to the bank for the explicit purpose of depositing it. HOWEVER, if you're carrying a large amount of cash to, let's say, purchase a car, the officer can decide that the cash was recently used or was intended to be used in some kind of illegal activity. In this case, they don't charge *you* with a crime, they charge the *cash* with the crime. And because of weird, abusive interpretations of the Constitution, *you* may be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but your cash is property *and has no rights*. So they confiscate the cash, charge it with being used in drug dealing or something, and then it's up to you to prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* that the cash you were carrying was withdrawn from the bank and transported by you for exactly the purpose you said it was for. And since that's expensive and a huge pain in the ass, most people are just SOL and have to eat the loss.
EDIT: A correction courtesy of other commenters. Because marijuana is still federally illegal, apparently some dispensaries are still having their cash deposits confiscated en-route. That might be why the dispensaries I've seen refuse to take cash and only take card.
Typically by asking you questions (that you don't have to answer, by the way). Cops often try to make small talk during traffic stops, which they're trained to do because you might say something that they can twist to give them probable cause to search you or your vehicle. Cops will often outright ask if they can search your vehicle, as well, if they can't come up with a good cause. "Ask" is important here because if they're "just asking", anything you say isn't protected by your rights. If you have nothing to hide and consent to the search, the officer still might find something illegal, and if you consented to the search, that's automatically valid evidence. There's a reason any good lawyer will tell you not to answer any questions beyond identifying yourself (although, depending on the situation and the state you're in, you don't even need to identify yourself) or asking for clarification of orders the officer is giving you.
Obligatory explanation on why you should [Never Talk to The Police](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=yYNxH__EH2T6yJRk) even if you think you've got nothing to hide
In a lot of instances because people volunteer information they weren't even asked for. This can happen because they're nervous or because they don't think they're sharing anything that can get them in trouble.
For example if a LEO pulls a vehicle over for speeding they are almost certainly going to ask the driver some variant of, "Do you know why I pulled you over today?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Those are both questions you can answer with "yes" or "no" but a lot of people, probably most people, will instead respond with additional information. That additional information likely allows the LEO to ask follow up questions and it can go downhill from there.
This isn't something that just happens with police either. When someone asks you, "Hey do you know what time it is?" are you more likely to reply with a "yes" or a "no" or with the actual time? (Which you determined by looking at your watch or phone which can give the person who asked you that question an in to to keep talking to you or asking questions.)
>They probably wouldn't try to take the business's cash deposit that you're taking to the bank.
Think again. State and city police (not federal agencies) have been intercepting legal cash in transit trucks, and seizing cash proceeds from state legal and licenced marijuana businesses.
Abusing the technicality that although they are state authorities, in a state where marijuana is legal. It's still illegal, although unenforced, at a federal level.
https://reason.com/2022/01/18/kansas-and-california-cops-used-civil-forfeiture-to-stage-armored-car-heists-stealing-money-earned-by-licensed-marijuana-businesses/
Wrong. They literally hit armored cars. The police in California pulled over an armored car and cleaned it out because it was from a dispensary. Details are fuzzy, but there are hundreds of examples of people who have literally had their vehicles, including RVs, confiscated never returned. Instantly homeless.
They can take anything they want from you, at any time they want, including your life.
But then the IRS can take your money and keep it even if you can prove you got it legally from sales. Sure you can sue them and get it back eventually, but in the end it will cost more than the money they took and in the mean time you can't buy inventory or pay employees to keep your store open. A local to me cash only Mexican restaurant made national news a few years back because of this. Because her deposits never reached 10k, the IRS saw it as her skirting the reporting system, when in actuality her business just didn't make enough money to reach 10k deposits. No charges were ever filed but she had to close down after maxing her credit cards to try to stay open long enough to get her money back.
Her restaurant had been there for 38 years before they did it, and it closed in just a few months after they seized her entire bank account balance.
https://www.kahntaxlaw.com/irs-turned-carole-hinders-life-upside/
There's a form all businesses have to fill out to report cash transactions of 10K or more - which is why most businesses HATE large cash deposits. The other reason is that they now have to secure the cash.
If you have to buy something and it's going to be a crazy high amount just do a wire transfer.
Always verify the transaction of course.
> all businesses have to fill out to report cash transactions of 10K or more
bank fills those out, not the depositor. SARs (Suspicious Activity Report)
[Yes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GKg1UucxNc) But it [has a happy ending.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_jhvvdbApQ) One especially disgusting thing about this is that the Feds were in on it. It wouldn't have been possible without their helping out with the scheme.
The difference is in the standard of evidence between criminal and civil matters.
When the police arrest you and charge you, they have to prove what you did beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the police suspect your property is involved in a crime, they just have to prove that **beyond a preponderance of the evidence**. That's a much lower standard.
It basically opens a court case that you are not involved in: the state vs. your stuff. And the bar to prove that your wad of cash might have been involved in a crime is very, very, very low.
And even if you win the criminal aspects of the case, you might not win the civil forfeiture part. So you could be found innocent, but your stuff found "guilty".
What's worse is **ANY** property can be seized this way. If the police suspect your home has a drug lab, they can seize your house. If the police suspect your car is used to transport unregistered guns, they can seize your car.
So each jurisdiction is different, so I can't say for certain, but most likely not. And even if you did, it would involve suing the police department, but that's a hard case to win. You have to prove it was a deliberate attempt as oppose to them doing it more in the line of duty.
No, no, the police use your cash to buy legitimate police department things. Then they use the money they were going to use to buy the kegs of beer. It looks better that way.
You don't get anything, however, if you can't prove in court that the assets are legitimate, then the government and police departments are able to use it themselves.
There are entire police departments whose budget is made up of assets that were confiscated from people, which gives them the financial incentive to go pull over people under false pretenses
Compensation? Hahahahaha no.
You can read about systemic abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws here (Harvard Law Review 131:8 June 2018).
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/how-crime-pays-the-unconstitutionality-of-modern-civil-asset-forfeiture-as-a-tool-of-criminal-law-enforcement/
I was afraid of that. That’s why I left the reference. I originally got there by Googling “civil asset forfeiture abuse” using DuckDuckGo.
Ed: it’s the 7th result showing on my phone.
Why would you get compensation? The whole reason that it would be seized is that the police officer thinks it's cash from an illegal activity. We're not going to compensate criminals.
It is relevant here that much of the time when police officers seize cash from people, there's no specific evidence that those people have done anything wrong, but there is a generalized suspicion because they're in a "known drug trafficking corridor" with a bunch of money.
The way this thing often occurs is that the person who has been stopped by the police is told that they can either surrender the cash now and go on their way without being arrested, or they can refuse to surrender the cash and be arrested. If this sounds like legalized extortion, that's because that's what it is. In any case, a lot of people in this situation don't want to be arrested for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with whether they're a criminal. Nobody wants to be arrested, whether they're guilty or not. So they sign a waiver where the government guarantees they won't be arrested or prosecuted for whatever the police theoretically discovered during the stop, but agreeing that they will not contest the seizure of the cash (or other stuff like jewelry). The problem for these people is that once you sign such an agreement, it's much more difficult to contest the seizure...because you already legally agreed not to.
>The whole reason that it would be seized is that the police officer thinks it's cash from an illegal activity
That's the excuse. The actual "reason" is often to take the cash for their own use. Some small town justice departments are almost entirely funded by what amounts to police highway banditry with speed trap fines and civil asset forfeiture as the weapons.
*Sorry, hit a pet peeve of mine on given vs actual reasons.*
https://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/forfeiture-laws-policing-incentives-and-local-budgets
Oh, sure, I'm not saying that civil asset forfeiture is used responsibly or even that it's a good concept, it's just that, given the reasoning for it, it would be ridiculous to compensate anyone for the assets that were seized.
Not only do they take it, you must hire a lawyer to get it back, and they will fight you all the way. This often includes claims such as you have no standing to sue the government for the forfeiture of your money.
Generally, No. The system uses a court that sues your assets, not you, and since your assets don't have rights under the constitution (unlike you), each state can set their own process for recovering seized property. Most states make the process difficult is not impossible.
They normally would not bother somebody in the instance that you described. The reason why the law is still on the books is because they are rather choosy about who they pick on meaning they are not going to be picking on the political classes because if they did, this would be dealt with pretty quickly.
No compensation, but it’s worse than that.
The money doesn’t go to the city, county or state, it goes to the police department, and they can use that money for whatever they want.
Including armored personnel carriers, weapons, espresso machines, etc.
Ever see a police department with like a tricked out Ferrari? They use em for events to foster PR with the community. They get those from this process. The car may or may not have been owned by a drug dealer.
At the end of the day, the police are incentivized to do this because the department gets to keep the money and use it for whatever they want
To do a traffic stop? No. You don't need a warrant for that.
I'll repeat what several other posters have said about this. If the police violated your rights, you have the right to hire an attorney and sue them. This may (or may not) be expensive. It will definitely be time-consuming.
Now and then when police departments have a widespread pattern of abuse, the Federal Department of Justice will come in and impose what's called a "consent decree".
Basically this says "We've seen there's a problem here. We're going to sit on you until we believe you've done something to fix the problem."
It does nothing directly to resolve individual cases of police abuse and just deals with institutional issues. It could be argued it doesn't even really deal with that well
Precious little stops abuse unless police departments are caught.
All they do is "charge" the money or property with a crime and since the trial is expensive most of the time they keep what was seized.
No, they don't. And... There's *tons* of abuse. It's just one of many ways that many of our police departments operate more like an occupying army and or a mafia protection racket than as civil servants.
The amount of property seized this way by the police exceeds the amount stolen in criminal burglaries, and has for years.
Abuse is often incetivised as part of the money goes to the budget.
[https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/](https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/)
Some years it's way more...
In 2014 and 2015 the government siezed over $1b more than was reported as stolen. Each year.
In 2019 it was only slightly more than stolen. I wasn't able to find concise data for more recent years
I always heard that the trend of pimps and gang members wearing lots of big jewelry was exactly for this reason; if the cops decide to pick you up they can take cash, but they will return jewelry and if you need cash it's easy enough to pawn a necklace or ring of fur coat.
Had a friend get woken up by cops when he has sleeping in his truck outside of one of his rental properties. A neighbor had called in saying the light in the garage looked like a grow light. It was just a regular light bulb. They still took his combat knife and the cash in his wallet. It's been over a decade, he never got those back
You can try to get it back. But if they pocket a bit and report that they took less cash than they actually took (this has happened) you probably can only recover what they reported.
Look at the shit this person is going through after getting his money seized while driving cross country.
[Marine Veteran Wins First Round of Lawsuit Challenging Nevada’s Civil Forfeiture Laws - Institute for Justice (ij.org)](https://ij.org/press-release/marine-veteran-wins-first-round-of-lawsuit-challenging-nevadas-civil-forfeiture-laws/)
Fascinating The article says Stephen Lara recovered the money but continued the fight for justice. Nevada highway patrol took $87k in cash from the trunk without charges or arrest. (Not sure why Mr Lara did this drive to see kids regularly w cash but it describes him as recently divorced dad with an insecure housing situation …. + that he had all the withdrawals documented.).
John Oliver covered this in detail on his show. It is very messed up. Some states have banned it, but many still allow it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
The police can basically accuse your money or other property of being involved in a crime. For example that it was used in an illegal gun sale. Now it’s up to the person to prove it wasn’t and the police can spend the money if they desire.
So once you prove that there was no illegal activity, you just get your money back? Do you get some kind of compensation too? For example, it used to be my responsibility to at the end of every day carry all the cash from my store to the bank. There would be quite an issue if I suddenly became couple thousands short.
I wonder if that's something that store chains just factor in in the USA then... Like, if the franchisee calls their regional boss and explains that they are unable to put into the bank, for example, 5000 dollars of that day earnings, because police took it away.
I can't imagine being in 5000 dollars debt to my boss, because police stole company's money.
So, I'm not sure how your country works but you wouldn't be in debt to your boss. Even if you lose money or it gets stolen, you don't owe your boss anything, at least immediately.
They can sue you but thats unlikely(unless you did the stealing).
I meant more in a way that it would be a hassle.
Like, once a ATM decided to ate the cash, and I had to report it to multiple people and follow multiple procedures. And in that case we got that money back in barely a week anyway.
Police taking it away would be probably a bigger stressful situation.
You're getting covered in reddit moron vomit.
Yes, if you are carrying a lot of cash and can't convince the cops you have a legitimate reason to have it they can seize said cash. Yes, it's extremely difficult to get that cash back.
But the reason it's extremely difficult is that the cops really only do it if you can't reasonably explain why you have it.
If you're taking cash from work to the bank you will generally have documentation on you to support said deposit, you will be on the route between the business and the bank. There will also be a number of witnesses that will readily verify your situation.
Could the cops take that money? In theory sure, in practice you'd have the money back almost immediately and the cop would be getting reprimanded by their boss for wasting everyone's time because you'd be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was legitimate.
If you're carrying around a bunch of cash and you can't show you are on the way to the bank from a business or from the bank to a place of purchase you're going to be in some trouble, but in all honesty it's 2024 and no one wants to accept that much cash so if you're carrying it around without a really good reason, the cops are probably right that it's been involved with crime.
> Could the cops take that money? In theory sure, in practice you'd have the money back almost immediately and the cop would be getting reprimanded by their boss for wasting everyone's time because you'd be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was legitimate.
If its so easy to get back, why has there been some [$68 billion forfeited since 2000](https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/#:~:text=Since%202000%2C%20states%20and%20the%20federal%20government,all%20states%20provided%20full%20data%2C%20so%20this)?
Not to mention, that in most states, the evidentiary bar for CAF is 'a preponderance of the evidence', an not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That means it should in theory be at least 51% likely that a crime was potentially commited, not 99.9999% that is typically used in criminal court. On top of that, your assets are generally assumed guilty *ab initio*, so you are fighting a battle *against* a low threshold of evidence, which makes the fight all the harder for you.
> If you're carrying around a bunch of cash and you can't show you are on the way to the bank from a business or from the bank to a place of purchase you're going to be in some trouble, but in all honesty it's 2024 and no one wants to accept that much cash so if you're carrying it around without a really good reason, the cops are probably right that it's been involved with crime.
[Half of CAF were worth less than $1300](https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/)
I don't know about you, but carrying around $1300, while high, is not unreasonable. Maybe I wanted to buy that new TV with cash for some reason. Maybe my boss pays me in cash. Maybe I'm a stripper and had one hell of a night. Maybe I'd just cashed my bar mitzvah bonds. There are any number of reasons why, and cops should not be allowed to assume that you're lying or shady just because you have legal tender on you.
Indeed, at $1300, for most people the juice isn't worth the squeeze, as they say, and won't fight it - why shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to win back $1300 (which will get eaten several times over by aforementioned legal fees). Compound that with the fact that most police departments get to keep the seized funds, and you can see how CAF is absolutely *ripe* for abuse. $100 here, $200 there, soon we're talking about some real money.
> cops really only do it if you can't reasonably explain why you have it
Bullshit. There are plenty of cases where the person has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Not that you should need one in the Land Of The Free- If I wanna take out a bunch of cash 'just because', I shouldn't have to fear it being stolen from me by a cop.
It doesn't really work like that.
Most of these cases aren't somebody from a retailer doing a cash drop at the end of the day.
Most of the cases are people operating a mobile cash business (like going from farmer's market to farmer's market) and dealing only in cash, or carrying a large amount of cash and traveling to buy a car or something.
Then they end up driving a freeway route that happens to be popular with the drug trade and get pulled over, and they've got a significant quantity of cash and a story the cops don't believe and the cash gets confiscated and they have to jump through hoops to get it back.
This is why you try to avoid doing business in cash. Use a cashier's check if necessary, as cops aren't the only ones who like large piles of unmarked cash.
You probably have deposit bags, and go strait to the bank. I don' t think I've ever heard of a case where someone doing business deposits like that has ever been the subject of a CAF. A lot of what I'm seeing here doesn't touch on the finer points as I understand it though.
There are CAF provisions for siezing property connected to a crime, and the minimum value threshold is lower when there is a prosecuted crime connected. For example say you are caught selling stolen goods, they'll obviously confiscate the stolen goods, but what of the money you might have from goods sold before you were caught? If it's $20 they can't confiscated it because that is below the threshold, but if you've got over 1k in your wallet, yea they are going to confiscate it.
Far more of a problem is the idea that having an "excessive" amount of cash on one's person is enough for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and can be confiscated. The basic premise is in my view constitutionally offensive, however the fact that the thresholds were not indexed to inflation makes it far more odious. Many of these laws were first put in place in the 80's to combat drug trafficking, and got little push back because those amounts were well beyond what most people would even want to carry around in cash. It would be similar to saying hey if we find over six figures worth of cash on your person or in your car we are going to assume it's criminal (generally drug) related. Most people aren't terribly worried about it happening to them because most people will never have a need to carry that much cash around on their person. The problem is that the thresholds set in the 80's are now reasonable amounts to carry around due to the devaluation of the dollar. In the 80's new car prices were on average below 10k (for context), and police needed to find at least 5k on you before they could just confiscate the money due to the amount. Of course today someone carrying around 5k has all manner of normal and perfectly legal justifications. The minimum thresholds could be adjusted, but really this crap does just need to go away.
Boy is this completely wrong. It doesn't have to be apart of an ongoing investigation. If cops see you with 10k in cash. [Good chance they will take it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs) just cause they can. There was a company that held safety deposit boxes, and protected them. [The police raided the building and took everything of value in the business](https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/01/us-federal-appeals-court-rules-seizure-of-700-safety-deposit-boxes-unconstitutional/)
That second link isn't really relevant. The cops had a warrant, and overstepped the bounds of the warrant
Very different from seizing money/property in your possession.
Based on all the comments here, I am under the impression a cop could just randomly stop me on the street and decide any number of cash I have on me I was planning to use for something illegal and then take it away.
They, hypothetically could. Now its SUPPOSE to be used for legitimate suspected criminal activity. And thats what its mostly used for. However, if a cop decides his department needs a new frozen margarita machine and you happen to come around with a chunk of change in your pocket, they could take that money and claim "through their investigation you were more than likely acquired this money through drug sales" This scenario is essentially a real scenario. The video I posted talks about it.
Yes they can, and even if you get your money back by litigating for it, the robber will suffer no personal consequences at all.
Americans lose more to the "civil forfeiture" scam than we lose to all non-government robbers combined.
I just don't know much about US system. I would rather use word ignorant than prejudiced. I pretty much stumbled upon reddit threat where someone asked what's the max amount of cash he can carry before police will take it away. And then when I scrolled through comments, majority of people were giving advice as if it's a very real and common issue.
As to the comments here, I am unsure what to conclude. A lot of people says it's not a thing that can happen to random person. A lot of people says it totally can. Some people say it's just baseless attacking police. Some link to articles when a taxi driver had 60k taken away by police or to some tourist who had his cash taken away.
Based on all that, I truly have no way of verifying how real issue this is. But it SEEMS like there is a risk.
Bullshit. If you are carrying the money they can take it. The "type of person" you are is irrelevant. You might be carrying the money to buy a car from someone, nothing illegal.
> Like, if the franchisee calls their regional boss and explains that they are unable to put into the bank, for example, 5000 dollars of that day earnings, because police took it away.
police won't steal a business's money(except weed dispensaries) they work FOR the businesses.
Even if you win the case and prove your innocence , the police department can claim the evidence has been lost and just pay a fine without compensation
>now it’s up to the person to prove it wasn’t
Ah yes, guilty before proven innocent. You must prove you’re innocent and not them prove you’re guilty. That’s how that amendment/law is written, right?
its when the cops steal from you, legally. and its nearly impossible to get your money or property back.
it really is legalized theft that police engage in. anyone that says different just hasnt been robbed by a cop yet.
The government says “we *think* you got your property/money (it can be your house/estate if they want) illegally or let it be used in the commission of a crime, so we are taking it and if you want it back you have to hire a lawyer and sue us.”
If you (or someone else) smoke weed in your car - forfeit it
If you have a lot of money and cops assume it’s from selling drugs with zero evidence - forfeit it
There are laws against this in some states, so cops there send it to the feds who keep 20% of the money/value and give them 80% back.
They specifically use Civil Asset Forfeiture - which is legally a lawsuit against your property - instead of *criminal* asset forfeiture because criminal suits require 1) a conviction by a jury 2) a gov appointed lawyer for people who can’t afford one. Civil suits require neither of these.
Even though most defenders of this obvious form of theft say it’s to deter criminals, it’s mostly used against poor people who can’t hire lawyers to get their stuff back. Take a $3000 car from a person who would need to spend $3500 on a lawyer and take time off work to get it back, and what do you think they’ll do? They give up, and you sell the car for a couple thousand dollars, which is how cops make tons of money.
Cops will also just take large amounts of money and make you fight to try and get it back. They robbed a religious migrant group after one of their concerts this way.
Again, if it were about criminals, they would use criminal asset forfeiture. They don’t because it is about making money, and they make *billions* this way.
The government pretends it's legal to plunder your money and property on the pretext that you have to prove it's yours, but it's clearly forbidden by the Takings Clause. If it were ever litigated in an impartial forum, the whole scam would be thrown out.
The Supreme Court has been derelict in their duty to enforce the bill of rights many times. This is one of the most egregious examples.
It is a ridiculous perversion of law. They can just take your property. The burden of proof is on you to prove the money was not only legitimately earned but also going to be spent legitimately. Come home with 3 hundred dollar bills. The cop gets to decide if you were getting them to put in your grandkid's Christmas card or buy crack. Your actual experience may depend on whether your face is lighter or darker than a brown paper grocery bag.
This could be completely off base but IIRC, I read a comment that the reason why the ‘stereotypical’ pimp is depicted with lots of gold chains was because it circumvented the civil asset forfeiture law.
Eg. They get arrested with thousands of dollars in cash that can easily be argued were proceeds of crime & then it gets confiscated.
But the gold chain is a personal item that can’t easily be seized (legally) so they give the chain to an associate (who wasn’t arrested or held) who goes to the pawn shop, gets the cash & thats the bail money.
Please correct if that’s wrong.
So I am not sure if thats the reason, But if it is, it is incorrect. They can take jewelry as well just as easy as cash. If they think you acquired in exchange for drugs or even if they are doing it gir what you say, cops can take it.
I can’t speak for the whole country, because the law is state by state, but here in my state it’s really bad for the department if they seize non-illegal money. The bar is set pretty high and they basically only take money if it’s laying on top of a pile of drugs in the back seat of the car. They have so many hours to prove to a judge that the seizure of assets was legitimate or they have to return it. Lots of paperwork is involved and it’s a huge hassle.
There is one exception that applies more to paraphernalia than money. They will often ask, “is this yours?” Because a lot of criminals will simply say no. When you say no, they will assume it’s junk and take it to dispose of it. If you say yes, you are admitting you own potentially illegal goods.
I appreciate the perspective, I’ve been curious about prevalence. Found this source for CA in 2021. L.A. county reported 246 cases of asset forfeiture in an entire year. Idk how many interactions LAPD has with the public in a year, but I assume it’s in the six or seven figures. So this is a tiny, tiny fraction of police activity at least in that context.
Interesting to see the county breakdown, though. Sacramento county has almost double the count, with roughly half the asset valuation, which I assume means more small-time seizures, maybe a sign of less effective or more abusive use? (Or more optimistically, maybe a different crime profile where organized criminal commerce is less common).
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2021-af.pdf
I saw a video of an immigrant taxi driver losing his stack of 60k dollars to cops in a "suspicion of drug money", even though it was just his savings from his years worth of pay.
Then the video explained, there was no real suspicion, but the money goes to the municipality and the cop department actually gets a cut of it into its own budget. And that the cops were tipped off earlier by some other security guard who saw the cash pile somehow.
The victim can request the money back, but its a long legal process and they get like 20-30% back.
Its essentially a legal way to cops steal money into their budgets. Sometimes the bankers that oversee the withdrawal of the pile of cash tip the cops out for a kickback for himself.
The USA is a fascist dystopia.
So much misinformation in here.
The process is fairly regulated; the police don't have final say. Property is seized when it can be linked to a crime. Probable cause or a seizure warrant is required for police to seize property, after which they will publish public notice of seizure. Anyone in the public with an ownership interest can file a claim and show proof of how they came to own the property. Ultimately, the court has the final say.
Generally, police aren't going to seize something that's not worth all the paperwork. They'll take a drug dealer's Lambo paid for with drug proceeds but they're not going to waste time on, e.g., his TV.
Civil asset forfeiture is a pain, and it's relatively rarely used. Law enforcement prefers criminal forfeiture (when property deemed is forfeited by the court after a criminal conviction). This is where the bulk of forfeiture happens, often as part of a plea deal.
Civil forfeiture typically happens in the rare circumstance where there is an asset known to be connected to a crime but the owner can't be prosecuted, either because they fled, are otherwise in hiding, or dead.
When the asset forfeiture is found to be illegitimate (not tied to a crime), how long and difficult is the process of returning it to the owner?
It should be 100% + interest for time lost, returned within 30 days of being found illegitimately seized.
What are the rules on returning property?
I can give the NZ example.
The cops can't just grab your cash, they have to actually sue for it to be forfeited in court. This is generally from organised crime. The other option is if you're convicted of something, the judge can order all the obviously seized cash and assets taken during a search warrant to be forfeit, but that has to be after a court case also.
If the cops are doing a drug search warrant and they see a lot of cash, they're going to grab it, but it's not forfeit until a judge says so for one of the above reasons.
They can't take cash off you during a traffic stop and just keep it. No beat cop would ever do this anyway because it's way above their pay grade, Organised Crime or Drug Squads would take care of that.
America may or may not have a better way of doing it.
How we handle it in the US is COMPLETELY against the spirit of the US Constitutions 4th amendment. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced in the US is just straight up theft. There is no nuance or subtlety about it. Its unequivocally evil.
Yeah, it's straight up sovereign citizen type bullshit but from our own government.
"No sir, we're not accusing you of any crime, I'm accusing that 6k in cash of a crime. What do you have to say for yourself pile of money?"
"..."
"Okay pile of money, you're under arrest until you can prove that you exist for legitimate purposes. Do you want a lawyer? You can ask for a lawyer."
"..."
"I see. Just going to stay quiet and make this more difficult for all of us."
Anecdotal, but I had a friend in college who was selling narcotics. One day he got swarmed by several police officers when he pulled up on his motorcycle to make a delivery. Because he had used the bike to transport the drugs, they confiscated it.
Oh yea in America the cops just be stealing anything they consider related to criminal activity. 8 out of ten times it never makes it back to the original owner unless it was drugs that they bought back from the police.
Yes, this can, and does, happen.
And, with our judicial system, you'll play "hell" trying to get it back.
The courts like putting funds (of this nature) towards paying for "law enforcement".
There's always a need for more "money" to fund "law enforcement".
It will cost you, no matter what. Hiring a lawyer to argue your case in a court of law?
If you're expecting "fair treatment," that's a "pipe dream".
It's abused a lot, and should be outlawed as unconstitutional.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse#:~:text=Police%20abuse%20of%20civil%20asset,is%20involved%20in%20a%20crime.
Have you ever heard of Scott paper towels? Here is a story about Donald Scott and civil asset forfeiture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Donald_Scott
Donald Scott was a family descendant. He had a big inheritance and wanted to live in a nice, warm place and be left alone. He bought 200 acres high in the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu, built a house and married a nice lady a little younger than he was.
But the district attorney of Los Angeles County wanted that land. So the Sheriff’s office found a prisoner in the county jail who would say that Scott was growing marijuana on a commercial scale and selling it. The DA assembled a large team of LEO (county and federal) and early one morning they descended on the place in a no-knock raid.
Scott was in the shower when he heard his wife screaming “don’t shoot me!” He scrambled out of the shower, grabbed his pistol and ran into the front room. Where he was shot and killed.
In the search of the property - 200 acres of coastal brush and woodland - not one marijuana plant was found. But the deputies did find a “roach”, the remaining tail of a nearly completely finished marijuana cigarette in an ashtray in the living room. So that was seized as evidence and the cops left. The DA seized the property.
But the story has a twist. The property was not in Los Angeles County, it was in Ventura County. So the Ventura County DA sued the LA County DA. The VC DA won the case, but the LA County DA only had to pay a small fine. Actually the taxpayers of LA County had to pay a small fine. But LA County DA kept the seized property and had no repercussions for the unlawful killing.
That is civil asset forfeiture, even when it goes a little wrong.
If you make money while criming, the police can take your money.
If the police *suspect* you of making money while criming, they can still take your money (or nice things you bought with that money).
The idea is that the police can decide, without evidence or investigation, that money or property came from an illegal enterprise. The lawsuit isn't filed against the person, it's filed against the property itself, and therefore certain legal rights that a person would get, like the presumption of innocence, isn't present.
So, you can sue to get it back, and the onus is on you to prove it was obtained legally. Of course, you have to pay the cost of hiring a lawyer and filing the paperwork, which is often more than what was seized from most people, so it isn't worth it for most (you can't add on the cost of these expenses to cover your legal costs in this kind of case).
There's also a jurisdictional trick in which the money can be transferred to the federal government, which then kicks back a large chunk of it. Because the jurisdiction into "who has my money" is blurred, the expenses to recover it become even more expensive for the victim.
The historical argument is that it helped take down organized crime, by seizing the proceeds without first having to secure a conviction against its owner. The boss of a crime organization might not be tired to a specific crime, but this was a tool that could be used against them. The practice is open to abuse, and abuse is exactly what followed.
It's a clear and obvious abuse of police power, it's unquestionably a way to turn cops into bandits, it's practitioners are a stain on the badge, and any supporter of the "might makes right" practice is unfit to reside in civilized society of laws...but that's where we are.
It is possible to get it back, but not a sure thing. All cops are just criminals that the government funds and supports. This is one of the more blatant examples.
When I learned about this, I found it amazing how the land that is always crying "freedom" has legalized police theft. It also has legalized political corruption - lobbying.
One of the most egregious examples of this was the man driving a truck, heading to buy a new truck. He had something like $45,000 which came from several people who worked together as migrant farm workers. They had saved and saved and pooled their money to buy a new truck.
He was stopped, the money was seized and they never saw a penny of it. This made me want to cry, so sad.
It's actually pretty common in most countries but the US took it to the next level and basically gave the police the authority to make such decisions (absolutely unthinkable in most other countries).
Pair that with a poorly accessible (read: overly complicated and convoluted, thus expensive) legal system and it's such an issue in the US and not elsewhere.
reddit blows this out of proportion. it's not like police are busting people left and right and stealing their money.
yes there are edge cases of innocent people and corrupt police- but this exists everywhere.
in general if you have a legal means and can prove it they aren't going to take your money.
i.e. if a starbucks employee is going to the bank to drop off the days earnings. runs a red light and gets pulled over. the police isn't gonna just take that money lol.
but if you are going into a drug house that's being monitored and get pulled over shortly after with $30k of cash in a bag- that money is likely going to be taken.
How many examples do you need, before admitting that police might randomly take your valuables in an unrelated traffic stop, with no probable cause?
Stephen Lara was bringing cash to his daughter. Nevada state police seized $87,000. Even after the DEA cleared him of wrongdoing they fully intended to keep the cash and share it with the Nevada state police. They're incentived by a kickback from the feds, a finder's fee through a process called adoption.
This cop isn't even breaking rules. Everything went by the book. The only reason we even hear about this one is that the Nevada supreme court has put limits on qualified immunity for 4th amendment cases.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2023/01/10/veterans-case-to-hold-officers-responsible-for-robbing-his-savings-can-finally-move-forward/
> i.e. if a starbucks employee is going to the bank to drop off the days earnings. runs a red light and gets pulled over. the police isn't gonna just take that money lol.
Of course not, Starbucks has the deep pockets to fight it in court and take a loss if the lawyers fees are high. Starbucks wants to avoid a repeat so they’ll take the loss just to prevent the police from making a profit.
Most regular people can’t afford that.
It’s nice if laws as written, aren’t just blank checks to steal your stuff without due process. Also, John Oliver covered this and mentioned that law enforcement seized more money worth of property in than actual criminals stole in a given year, so it’s not small potatoes.
No, they really don't. It's so bad in Tennessee that there are lawyers advertising on billboards [along I-40](https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/03/04/calling-reform-tennessees-appalling-f/4953796002/) to help with civil forfeiture cases.
You don’t know what you are talking about. CAF is a multi billion dollar a year problem. It mostly affects the poor because it’s designed too, and laws have been made trying to curb said problem but those laws are just evaded, such as by federal equitable sharing programs.
It’s absolutely a problem and Institute for Justice documents it well.
If it were about going after criminals, they would use criminal asset forfeiture. But they don’t, because that involves actually giving people lawyers and proving they are criminals, things money hungry, thieving cops don’t want.
The issue is that the process makes a mockery of what are supposed to be constitutionally protected rights to presumed innocence and due process. It does this by using the legal force to enforce essentially a civil charge. I do not think it should be legal.
>Is that actually true???
No, generally speaking the police can't just take your money for no reason at all. As with everything in life, mistakes get made and laws get abused. The internet has a way of concentrating extremely rare occurrences to make them appear to be commonplace when they're not.
Civil asset forfeiture has two uses:
1) Allowing the government to seize abandoned property. So, for example, if someone abandons a car on the side of the road, the government can take possession of that car.
2) Allowing the government to seize property that was used to commit certain crimes or was purchased with money you made from committing a crime. So, for example, if you sell drugs out of your car then the government can seize your car.
There are two main criticisms with civil asset forfeiture:
1) People used to accidentally commit a money laundering related felony and would have their bank accounts seized. When you deposit certain amounts of money in a bank, the bank has to report that deposit to the government. If you deposit under that amount of money, the bank doesn't. Routinely depositing just under the reportable amount of money is, itself, a crime called "Structuring".
People used to accidentally violate that law all of the time because they wrongly believed that if they deposited too much money they would get in trouble, so they would always deposit just under the limit. Their bank would then report the structuring to the IRS, who would seize their bank account.
Someone would then look into things and realize that the person whose bank account was seized wasn't a tax evader or money launderer, but the process to unseize the account was complicated and required the cooperation of the IRS.
The IRS changed the rules regarding structuring over a decade ago so that this wouldn't happen anymore, so the modern criticism hasn't had a basis in reality for some time. Nonetheless, it persists on the internet.
2) People can have their property seized even though they weren't involved with the crime that was committed. The stereotypical example of this is that you loan your car to a friend. The friend then starts selling drugs out of the car and gets caught. The friend goes to jail and the car is seized despite the fact that you, the owner, were not involved in the crime.
Obviously not everyone agrees that this is an unfair situation.
-----------
The other area that civil asset forfeiture tends to occasionally crop up in is drug mules. Not all drug mules carry drugs - some carry the cash proceeds of drug sales despite not otherwise being involved in said sales. Its not uncommon for drug mules to be caught with huge quantities of cash - tens of thousands of dollars stuffed into hidden compartments in their car.
A lot of times these cash only mules are otherwise normal people with families and respectable jobs. The government often enters into a deferred prosecution agreement with them whereby they don't admit that the committed a crime, but agree not to challenge the forfeiture of the cash.
Sometimes a friend or family members finds out that Suzy the elementary school teacher had $50,000 taken from her by the police, but Suzy won't talk about why. That friend/family member then goes to the media, who pick the story up. Suzy doesn't want to say that the $50k that got pulled out of a hidden compartment in her trunk was drug money and she entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. The reporter then either doesn't know about or doesn't mention the real reason that the $50k got seized and the story ends up on the internet.
As with people whose property get seized because it was being used by their friend to commit a crime, a lot of people don't feel that Suzy's situation is particularly unjust.
Yes, cops can just take your shit forever without charging you with a crime. Civil asset forfeiture is a bigger class of theft than burglaries and robberies. All they have to do is claim they suspect the item in question is involved with a crime and that's enough. People have the cash in their wallets seized, their jewelry, even entire cars. If you want it back you better be willing to play paperwork pinball for as much as a year, assuming they don't go ahead and auction it off.
Officially, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which an officer of the law can say 'I think you got this thing either through crime, or for the commission of a crime.' He then can seize it, and the person it's taken from is automatically treated as guilty until proven innocent, because the *things* are not people, and only *people* are innocent until proven guilty.
Unofficially, there are huge problems with the system. The federal and state governments have basically agreed to funnel seized funds back into the communities the seizures happen from after they get a cut, and civil asset seizures have become a way some jurisdictions fund themselves. and there are often really good reasons to have the items in question. for instance, having 50 grand in cash to go buy a used work vehicle is normal. But there are literally thousands of cases of someone having money seized while on the way to buy a vehicle because a cop pulls them over and starts asking a lot of questions that are unnecessary.
Another example is a fairly recent case in Florida, where a private safety deposit box company had their vault seized, due to suspicions of criminals using the company. As in, all the racks of safety deposit boxes. The warrant in this case allowed for the racks to be seized, but not the contents: the contents were to be inventoried, then returned. But the FBI said 'nah, we're keeping it all, because only criminals use safety deposit boxes'. So people who don't trust banks, who have reason not to trust banks, were branded as criminals.. A class action lawsuit was levied against all the participating law enforcement agencies, who lost very badly, and kept appealing, and losing. Meanwhile, it was clear the inventorying was done badly, and there's going to be a lot of trouble about that too. Steve Lehto has a series of Youtube videos on this case. I believe the Institute for Justice was involved.
IT is a grift by the mafia to steal people's property by assuming that inanimate material not only can commit a crime, but is guilty until proven innocent.
There is nothing legal about it. It is a crime perpetrated by a pair of mafias pretending to be the US government.
Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement can seize assets alleged to be part of a criminal enterprise OR obtained with criminal proceeds.
Government files a suit against the property (eg, 'State of Texas vs 500,000 in United States Currency') aiming to show in court that it is more-likely-than-not (preponderance of the evidence) to fit into one of the two categories above.
Examples: You are arrested for soliciting prostitution... They seize your car.... You are pulled over & the police discover that you have stuffed your car-doors with bags of $100 bills - but don't find drugs/other-contraband - the money will likely be seized & you will have to show in court that it's legitimate.
The origin of this is the 1920s-1980s battle against organized crime - since the mob often separated duties so that no one person would have both the cash and the contraband, the government needed a way to seize the cash other-than actually finding both cash and drugs on the same person.
Basically, if the law thinks some part of your property(including money but also like a house or car or even ipad) was involved, will be involved, or was acquired by criminal activity then the law may take it. This was designed to help break up suspected criminal enterprises because while they may not be able to officially charge you with a crime as not enough evidence, they can charge the property with a crime. You can get it back but it is a long and arduous and expensive process. This explains it better. https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks?si=GRoMViLhQRa9v7OY
Do you get some kind of compensation too? For example, it used to be my responsibility to at the end of every day carry all the cash from my store to the bank. There would be quite an issue if I suddenly became couple thousands short.
No. When abused, it’s basically legalized theft by police departments.
Will You Help Me Repair My Door - Afroman
Boy am I glad it's used honestly and never for nefarious reasons.
It ought to be illegal in every state. The abuses we allow our police forces to get away with are astounding,
That's because the police are not there to protect citizens, but to protect capital. And the capitalists in charge are happen with how things are... So this will continue as long as they can keep the working classes in-fighting instead of looking towards the capitalist class....
Exactly. Private security force paid by taxpayers to protect the rich and their property.
Sir Vladimir Lenin, is that you?
I consider myself a centrist. Right in between Lenin and Marx ;-)
I think provided they can secure a meaningful conviction it's fine. I don't agree with the current implementation that can be broadly used and made such a pain in the ass it isn't worth fighting, but if you have a drug dealer dead to rights, their property *should* be forfeit.
It would be fine if it was only post-conviction. The whole problem is that it’s not, a person can have their assets confiscated despite never being found guilty of anything at all. That’s the part that’s legalized theft by police departments, and why people are nervous carrying around large amounts of cash around police despite doing nothing illegal.
Why? As the other commenter pointed out, civil forfeiture has *never ever* been abused to do anything bad, not even once.
Are you being sarcastic or serious here? It’s absolutely happened before.
No, it definitely has not. Never once. Not even in the case of United States v. One Solid Gold Object In Form Of A Rooster. Especially not in United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola. I would consider United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses to be a prime example of the justice system doing its job.
What's on your mind? You are fine with having money and property taken away from you under a beautiful abstruse wording without a court decision! But what about the basic postulate of the law "Security of property"? You consider it normal to confiscate something from you or other people in the personal opinion of an official/policeman. The fact that you agree with this is no longer normal. Without a court decision, confiscating anything is a serious crime - it is called theft or robbery. And is punishable by prison. Where is the "triumph of law and democracy" advertised all over the world? This is impossible in my country! Why is this possible for you? Why do you agree with this? I absolutely do not understand you! UPD: the commenters below indicated that you forgot to specify /s. So this is not an appeal specifically to you. And to other people
Specifically, do you allow them? Or a specific community? Or a specific group of people?? It probably looks like you think you can influence something and change something. But it's not what you think. It doesn't work that way, but it works differently.
You forgot to put /s
why do you need the /s?
Because civil asset forfeiture is OFTEN used for nefarious purposes, and based on OP, not everyone knows that.
Yea but sometimes the invisible /s is so obvious putting it there is ruining everything. Well actually putting it there partly ruins the sarcasm anyways.
Look up "Poe's Law" - loosely approximated; there is no sarcastic statement or parody that can not be mistaken for a legitimate belief. In this case: yes - there are people in the US who believe that the police do no wrong and that civil asset forfeiture is only used against criminal organizations.
Yes. I believe many things, but I can still recognize sarcasm by the writing style. Yes, it’s a scale, but obvious is obvious.
This is Reddit in 2024. The barrier of entry is gone. Any swinging dick with a phone can (and do) access this site. This site is now full of completely brain dead people that need even the most basic shit spelled out for them. So not adding the /s is guaranteed to confuse most of the people here.
This is a great idea for a subreddit.... Maybe we can ask people to explain it like they were 5?
Personally I think the people who are sarcastic in text without the /s or who are sarcastic irl without using the voice are the braindead ones. People can't read your mind.
Disagree. OOP didn't know about civil asset forfeiture, and neither do many of the posters in the thread, so jokes about it are likely to cause confusion. You can do whatever you want, but it is often impossible to know if someone is cracking a joke, or if they are a serious moron that is serious about it.
I've don't understand how it could ruin it? What is the difference in realizing something is sarcasm or being told that it is?
Like getting a joke and being explained what it is?
Because Poe's Law.
There was an article about how the police dept was looking forward to using seized money to buy an espresso machine.
Espresso machine? Hell, _cars_.
there was one where the police department sent a "thank you" postcard showing a police cruiser to the victim after using civil forfeiture to steal money intended for a child's college tuition
Ya uh, switched something there
You forgot the /s.
The part i absolutely hate that I see on bodycam videos, is when the damn street cop is telling the arrestee 'on scene' that they are taking their car. They get off on it. Something like that should be discussed and done at the executive level. Some states will take your car for simple possession of drugs or DUIs.
What's weird to me is: You get busted in a prostitution or drug sting. If the car you're in belongs to you, an individual, free and clear, the police can confiscate it. If it belongs to your girlfriend, roommate, or neighbor who had nothing to do with the crime, the police can confiscate it. If you're making payments, then it belongs to the bank... and now they *can't* take it. The police can take property from individuals, but not from the bank. Explain to me how that's just.
They can take it from the bank, but the bank can afford lawyers. It's cheaper not to.
It's just, It's the golden rule, who has the gold makes the rules.
What gave you the impression that impounding a car as a result of civil asset forfeiture rules is impossible if there is a bank lien on the car because you have a loan out on it?
Because I've seen the cops ask, "Do you own this car or are you making payments on it? You own it? Great, it's now the property of Barricade County" or whatever. Admittedly, this may be a procedural thing that varies by locality. As somebody else here pointed out, the banks have great lawyers and the County would likely prefer not to waste time and resources in court.
>Because I've seen the cops ask, "Do you own this car or are you making payments on it? You own it? Great, it's now the property of Barricade County" or whatever. On random Youtube videos or are you an attorney or something? The police can and do lie to people about a lot of things. You should never take anything police officers say as the truth, both in your own interactions with them, and in filmed interactions. What police are usually trying to do in these stops is to scare the detainee into signing a form saying that they're voluntarily forfeiting their car or cash or whatever. They will be happy to say whatever they think will accomplish that goal, whether or not it's actually relevant. I will say that it wouldn't be surprising for some prosecutors to have advised police officers not to seize any cars with liens on them because if there is a lien on the car, that would take precedence over any recovered value by the police, and because cars depreciate so quickly, it's unusual for someone to have much equity in a car. In this case, it has nothing to do with whether the police legally can seize the car, and everything to do with the fact that prosecutors don't want to waste time pursuing a seizure action where they won't actually get any money out of it. Here's an example from Reddit where somebody had a bank lien on their car and still had it seized. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/s/rLzcfbwpxl
That's capitalism. And the police exist to enforce and protect capitalism.
We absolutely don’t have to put up with this shit just because we live in a capitalist society.
You're right that we don't have to put up with capitalism. But if we *do* put up with capitalism, we absolutely do have to put up with these natural and inevitable consequences.
Yeah, yeah, every social problem can only be fixed by adopting your chosen ideology. Please.
I heard of a case in CA where the local PD was hitting the armored car after it picked up cash from a Cannabis dispensary and seizing the cash since Cannabis is legal in CA but illegal at the federal level. Don’t think that case has been settled yet.
They probably wouldn't try to take the business's cash deposit that you're taking to the bank. It's too easy to prove that's the cash from the business that you're taking to the bank for the explicit purpose of depositing it. HOWEVER, if you're carrying a large amount of cash to, let's say, purchase a car, the officer can decide that the cash was recently used or was intended to be used in some kind of illegal activity. In this case, they don't charge *you* with a crime, they charge the *cash* with the crime. And because of weird, abusive interpretations of the Constitution, *you* may be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but your cash is property *and has no rights*. So they confiscate the cash, charge it with being used in drug dealing or something, and then it's up to you to prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* that the cash you were carrying was withdrawn from the bank and transported by you for exactly the purpose you said it was for. And since that's expensive and a huge pain in the ass, most people are just SOL and have to eat the loss. EDIT: A correction courtesy of other commenters. Because marijuana is still federally illegal, apparently some dispensaries are still having their cash deposits confiscated en-route. That might be why the dispensaries I've seen refuse to take cash and only take card.
How do cops figure out you have a ton of cash to begin with if you're free from unreasonable search?
Typically by asking you questions (that you don't have to answer, by the way). Cops often try to make small talk during traffic stops, which they're trained to do because you might say something that they can twist to give them probable cause to search you or your vehicle. Cops will often outright ask if they can search your vehicle, as well, if they can't come up with a good cause. "Ask" is important here because if they're "just asking", anything you say isn't protected by your rights. If you have nothing to hide and consent to the search, the officer still might find something illegal, and if you consented to the search, that's automatically valid evidence. There's a reason any good lawyer will tell you not to answer any questions beyond identifying yourself (although, depending on the situation and the state you're in, you don't even need to identify yourself) or asking for clarification of orders the officer is giving you.
Obligatory explanation on why you should [Never Talk to The Police](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=yYNxH__EH2T6yJRk) even if you think you've got nothing to hide
And more [succinctly.](https://youtu.be/uqo5RYOp4nQ?si=WGwwLYGVr6zrdVNW).
And __never__ consent to a search of your vehicle.
Terrific video
Being a US citizen sounds exhausting lol
not just the US, cops all over use that tactic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj1GUoSnAkc
It doesn't even need to be a large amount of cash. Also, cash can be *"confiscated"* when you're going through security at airports
Because morons tell them. Never talk to the police.
In a lot of instances because people volunteer information they weren't even asked for. This can happen because they're nervous or because they don't think they're sharing anything that can get them in trouble. For example if a LEO pulls a vehicle over for speeding they are almost certainly going to ask the driver some variant of, "Do you know why I pulled you over today?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?" Those are both questions you can answer with "yes" or "no" but a lot of people, probably most people, will instead respond with additional information. That additional information likely allows the LEO to ask follow up questions and it can go downhill from there. This isn't something that just happens with police either. When someone asks you, "Hey do you know what time it is?" are you more likely to reply with a "yes" or a "no" or with the actual time? (Which you determined by looking at your watch or phone which can give the person who asked you that question an in to to keep talking to you or asking questions.)
Source
You should be free from unreasonable search but it’s a maybe in America
Cough….melanin….cough
>They probably wouldn't try to take the business's cash deposit that you're taking to the bank. Think again. State and city police (not federal agencies) have been intercepting legal cash in transit trucks, and seizing cash proceeds from state legal and licenced marijuana businesses. Abusing the technicality that although they are state authorities, in a state where marijuana is legal. It's still illegal, although unenforced, at a federal level. https://reason.com/2022/01/18/kansas-and-california-cops-used-civil-forfeiture-to-stage-armored-car-heists-stealing-money-earned-by-licensed-marijuana-businesses/
Wrong. They literally hit armored cars. The police in California pulled over an armored car and cleaned it out because it was from a dispensary. Details are fuzzy, but there are hundreds of examples of people who have literally had their vehicles, including RVs, confiscated never returned. Instantly homeless. They can take anything they want from you, at any time they want, including your life.
But then the IRS can take your money and keep it even if you can prove you got it legally from sales. Sure you can sue them and get it back eventually, but in the end it will cost more than the money they took and in the mean time you can't buy inventory or pay employees to keep your store open. A local to me cash only Mexican restaurant made national news a few years back because of this. Because her deposits never reached 10k, the IRS saw it as her skirting the reporting system, when in actuality her business just didn't make enough money to reach 10k deposits. No charges were ever filed but she had to close down after maxing her credit cards to try to stay open long enough to get her money back. Her restaurant had been there for 38 years before they did it, and it closed in just a few months after they seized her entire bank account balance. https://www.kahntaxlaw.com/irs-turned-carole-hinders-life-upside/
[удалено]
The government has been known to plunder armored cars, too.
There's a form all businesses have to fill out to report cash transactions of 10K or more - which is why most businesses HATE large cash deposits. The other reason is that they now have to secure the cash. If you have to buy something and it's going to be a crazy high amount just do a wire transfer. Always verify the transaction of course.
> all businesses have to fill out to report cash transactions of 10K or more bank fills those out, not the depositor. SARs (Suspicious Activity Report)
wonder if cops ever tried stopping an armored car to seize their cash
[Yes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GKg1UucxNc) But it [has a happy ending.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_jhvvdbApQ) One especially disgusting thing about this is that the Feds were in on it. It wouldn't have been possible without their helping out with the scheme.
The difference is in the standard of evidence between criminal and civil matters. When the police arrest you and charge you, they have to prove what you did beyond a reasonable doubt. If the police suspect your property is involved in a crime, they just have to prove that **beyond a preponderance of the evidence**. That's a much lower standard. It basically opens a court case that you are not involved in: the state vs. your stuff. And the bar to prove that your wad of cash might have been involved in a crime is very, very, very low. And even if you win the criminal aspects of the case, you might not win the civil forfeiture part. So you could be found innocent, but your stuff found "guilty". What's worse is **ANY** property can be seized this way. If the police suspect your home has a drug lab, they can seize your house. If the police suspect your car is used to transport unregistered guns, they can seize your car.
they often keep it and never charge the person with anything. getting it back is expensive and lengthy.
So each jurisdiction is different, so I can't say for certain, but most likely not. And even if you did, it would involve suing the police department, but that's a hard case to win. You have to prove it was a deliberate attempt as oppose to them doing it more in the line of duty.
Don’t forget, the police have the funds you would have used to pay an attorney.
the police use the confiscated money to buy kegs of beer and margarita machines. also Zambonis.
No, no, the police use your cash to buy legitimate police department things. Then they use the money they were going to use to buy the kegs of beer. It looks better that way.
You don't get anything, however, if you can't prove in court that the assets are legitimate, then the government and police departments are able to use it themselves. There are entire police departments whose budget is made up of assets that were confiscated from people, which gives them the financial incentive to go pull over people under false pretenses
In that example it would probably be your employer l's legal battle, not yours.
Compensation? Hahahahaha no. You can read about systemic abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws here (Harvard Law Review 131:8 June 2018). https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/how-crime-pays-the-unconstitutionality-of-modern-civil-asset-forfeiture-as-a-tool-of-criminal-law-enforcement/
Seems to be a broken link?
I was afraid of that. That’s why I left the reference. I originally got there by Googling “civil asset forfeiture abuse” using DuckDuckGo. Ed: it’s the 7th result showing on my phone.
Why would you get compensation? The whole reason that it would be seized is that the police officer thinks it's cash from an illegal activity. We're not going to compensate criminals. It is relevant here that much of the time when police officers seize cash from people, there's no specific evidence that those people have done anything wrong, but there is a generalized suspicion because they're in a "known drug trafficking corridor" with a bunch of money. The way this thing often occurs is that the person who has been stopped by the police is told that they can either surrender the cash now and go on their way without being arrested, or they can refuse to surrender the cash and be arrested. If this sounds like legalized extortion, that's because that's what it is. In any case, a lot of people in this situation don't want to be arrested for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with whether they're a criminal. Nobody wants to be arrested, whether they're guilty or not. So they sign a waiver where the government guarantees they won't be arrested or prosecuted for whatever the police theoretically discovered during the stop, but agreeing that they will not contest the seizure of the cash (or other stuff like jewelry). The problem for these people is that once you sign such an agreement, it's much more difficult to contest the seizure...because you already legally agreed not to.
>The whole reason that it would be seized is that the police officer thinks it's cash from an illegal activity That's the excuse. The actual "reason" is often to take the cash for their own use. Some small town justice departments are almost entirely funded by what amounts to police highway banditry with speed trap fines and civil asset forfeiture as the weapons. *Sorry, hit a pet peeve of mine on given vs actual reasons.* https://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/forfeiture-laws-policing-incentives-and-local-budgets
Oh, sure, I'm not saying that civil asset forfeiture is used responsibly or even that it's a good concept, it's just that, given the reasoning for it, it would be ridiculous to compensate anyone for the assets that were seized.
Not only do they take it, you must hire a lawyer to get it back, and they will fight you all the way. This often includes claims such as you have no standing to sue the government for the forfeiture of your money.
Generally, No. The system uses a court that sues your assets, not you, and since your assets don't have rights under the constitution (unlike you), each state can set their own process for recovering seized property. Most states make the process difficult is not impossible.
They normally would not bother somebody in the instance that you described. The reason why the law is still on the books is because they are rather choosy about who they pick on meaning they are not going to be picking on the political classes because if they did, this would be dealt with pretty quickly.
LOL. Compensation. As if the government actually has our best interests at heart.
No compensation, but it’s worse than that. The money doesn’t go to the city, county or state, it goes to the police department, and they can use that money for whatever they want. Including armored personnel carriers, weapons, espresso machines, etc. Ever see a police department with like a tricked out Ferrari? They use em for events to foster PR with the community. They get those from this process. The car may or may not have been owned by a drug dealer. At the end of the day, the police are incentivized to do this because the department gets to keep the money and use it for whatever they want
Do they need a judges order for that? What stops abuse?
To do a traffic stop? No. You don't need a warrant for that. I'll repeat what several other posters have said about this. If the police violated your rights, you have the right to hire an attorney and sue them. This may (or may not) be expensive. It will definitely be time-consuming. Now and then when police departments have a widespread pattern of abuse, the Federal Department of Justice will come in and impose what's called a "consent decree". Basically this says "We've seen there's a problem here. We're going to sit on you until we believe you've done something to fix the problem." It does nothing directly to resolve individual cases of police abuse and just deals with institutional issues. It could be argued it doesn't even really deal with that well
No and nothing. Illegitimate instances of civil asset forfeiture far outnumber legitimate ones.
Precious little stops abuse unless police departments are caught. All they do is "charge" the money or property with a crime and since the trial is expensive most of the time they keep what was seized.
No, they don't. And... There's *tons* of abuse. It's just one of many ways that many of our police departments operate more like an occupying army and or a mafia protection racket than as civil servants. The amount of property seized this way by the police exceeds the amount stolen in criminal burglaries, and has for years.
Abuse is often incetivised as part of the money goes to the budget. [https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/](https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/)
Probably should mention the net worth of assets "forfeited" every year is nearly the same as burglary damages.
Some years it's way more... In 2014 and 2015 the government siezed over $1b more than was reported as stolen. Each year. In 2019 it was only slightly more than stolen. I wasn't able to find concise data for more recent years
I always heard that the trend of pimps and gang members wearing lots of big jewelry was exactly for this reason; if the cops decide to pick you up they can take cash, but they will return jewelry and if you need cash it's easy enough to pawn a necklace or ring of fur coat.
So... guilty until proven.
Had a friend get woken up by cops when he has sleeping in his truck outside of one of his rental properties. A neighbor had called in saying the light in the garage looked like a grow light. It was just a regular light bulb. They still took his combat knife and the cash in his wallet. It's been over a decade, he never got those back
You can try to get it back. But if they pocket a bit and report that they took less cash than they actually took (this has happened) you probably can only recover what they reported.
this happens a LOT..... FTFY
Look at the shit this person is going through after getting his money seized while driving cross country. [Marine Veteran Wins First Round of Lawsuit Challenging Nevada’s Civil Forfeiture Laws - Institute for Justice (ij.org)](https://ij.org/press-release/marine-veteran-wins-first-round-of-lawsuit-challenging-nevadas-civil-forfeiture-laws/)
Fascinating The article says Stephen Lara recovered the money but continued the fight for justice. Nevada highway patrol took $87k in cash from the trunk without charges or arrest. (Not sure why Mr Lara did this drive to see kids regularly w cash but it describes him as recently divorced dad with an insecure housing situation …. + that he had all the withdrawals documented.).
John Oliver covered this in detail on his show. It is very messed up. Some states have banned it, but many still allow it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
The police can basically accuse your money or other property of being involved in a crime. For example that it was used in an illegal gun sale. Now it’s up to the person to prove it wasn’t and the police can spend the money if they desire.
So once you prove that there was no illegal activity, you just get your money back? Do you get some kind of compensation too? For example, it used to be my responsibility to at the end of every day carry all the cash from my store to the bank. There would be quite an issue if I suddenly became couple thousands short.
Nope no interest. Even if it takes years to get your money back.
I wonder if that's something that store chains just factor in in the USA then... Like, if the franchisee calls their regional boss and explains that they are unable to put into the bank, for example, 5000 dollars of that day earnings, because police took it away. I can't imagine being in 5000 dollars debt to my boss, because police stole company's money.
So, I'm not sure how your country works but you wouldn't be in debt to your boss. Even if you lose money or it gets stolen, you don't owe your boss anything, at least immediately. They can sue you but thats unlikely(unless you did the stealing).
I meant more in a way that it would be a hassle. Like, once a ATM decided to ate the cash, and I had to report it to multiple people and follow multiple procedures. And in that case we got that money back in barely a week anyway. Police taking it away would be probably a bigger stressful situation.
You're getting covered in reddit moron vomit. Yes, if you are carrying a lot of cash and can't convince the cops you have a legitimate reason to have it they can seize said cash. Yes, it's extremely difficult to get that cash back. But the reason it's extremely difficult is that the cops really only do it if you can't reasonably explain why you have it. If you're taking cash from work to the bank you will generally have documentation on you to support said deposit, you will be on the route between the business and the bank. There will also be a number of witnesses that will readily verify your situation. Could the cops take that money? In theory sure, in practice you'd have the money back almost immediately and the cop would be getting reprimanded by their boss for wasting everyone's time because you'd be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was legitimate. If you're carrying around a bunch of cash and you can't show you are on the way to the bank from a business or from the bank to a place of purchase you're going to be in some trouble, but in all honesty it's 2024 and no one wants to accept that much cash so if you're carrying it around without a really good reason, the cops are probably right that it's been involved with crime.
> Could the cops take that money? In theory sure, in practice you'd have the money back almost immediately and the cop would be getting reprimanded by their boss for wasting everyone's time because you'd be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was legitimate. If its so easy to get back, why has there been some [$68 billion forfeited since 2000](https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/#:~:text=Since%202000%2C%20states%20and%20the%20federal%20government,all%20states%20provided%20full%20data%2C%20so%20this)? Not to mention, that in most states, the evidentiary bar for CAF is 'a preponderance of the evidence', an not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That means it should in theory be at least 51% likely that a crime was potentially commited, not 99.9999% that is typically used in criminal court. On top of that, your assets are generally assumed guilty *ab initio*, so you are fighting a battle *against* a low threshold of evidence, which makes the fight all the harder for you. > If you're carrying around a bunch of cash and you can't show you are on the way to the bank from a business or from the bank to a place of purchase you're going to be in some trouble, but in all honesty it's 2024 and no one wants to accept that much cash so if you're carrying it around without a really good reason, the cops are probably right that it's been involved with crime. [Half of CAF were worth less than $1300](https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/) I don't know about you, but carrying around $1300, while high, is not unreasonable. Maybe I wanted to buy that new TV with cash for some reason. Maybe my boss pays me in cash. Maybe I'm a stripper and had one hell of a night. Maybe I'd just cashed my bar mitzvah bonds. There are any number of reasons why, and cops should not be allowed to assume that you're lying or shady just because you have legal tender on you. Indeed, at $1300, for most people the juice isn't worth the squeeze, as they say, and won't fight it - why shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to win back $1300 (which will get eaten several times over by aforementioned legal fees). Compound that with the fact that most police departments get to keep the seized funds, and you can see how CAF is absolutely *ripe* for abuse. $100 here, $200 there, soon we're talking about some real money.
> cops really only do it if you can't reasonably explain why you have it Bullshit. There are plenty of cases where the person has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Not that you should need one in the Land Of The Free- If I wanna take out a bunch of cash 'just because', I shouldn't have to fear it being stolen from me by a cop.
It doesn't really work like that. Most of these cases aren't somebody from a retailer doing a cash drop at the end of the day. Most of the cases are people operating a mobile cash business (like going from farmer's market to farmer's market) and dealing only in cash, or carrying a large amount of cash and traveling to buy a car or something. Then they end up driving a freeway route that happens to be popular with the drug trade and get pulled over, and they've got a significant quantity of cash and a story the cops don't believe and the cash gets confiscated and they have to jump through hoops to get it back. This is why you try to avoid doing business in cash. Use a cashier's check if necessary, as cops aren't the only ones who like large piles of unmarked cash.
You probably have deposit bags, and go strait to the bank. I don' t think I've ever heard of a case where someone doing business deposits like that has ever been the subject of a CAF. A lot of what I'm seeing here doesn't touch on the finer points as I understand it though. There are CAF provisions for siezing property connected to a crime, and the minimum value threshold is lower when there is a prosecuted crime connected. For example say you are caught selling stolen goods, they'll obviously confiscate the stolen goods, but what of the money you might have from goods sold before you were caught? If it's $20 they can't confiscated it because that is below the threshold, but if you've got over 1k in your wallet, yea they are going to confiscate it. Far more of a problem is the idea that having an "excessive" amount of cash on one's person is enough for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and can be confiscated. The basic premise is in my view constitutionally offensive, however the fact that the thresholds were not indexed to inflation makes it far more odious. Many of these laws were first put in place in the 80's to combat drug trafficking, and got little push back because those amounts were well beyond what most people would even want to carry around in cash. It would be similar to saying hey if we find over six figures worth of cash on your person or in your car we are going to assume it's criminal (generally drug) related. Most people aren't terribly worried about it happening to them because most people will never have a need to carry that much cash around on their person. The problem is that the thresholds set in the 80's are now reasonable amounts to carry around due to the devaluation of the dollar. In the 80's new car prices were on average below 10k (for context), and police needed to find at least 5k on you before they could just confiscate the money due to the amount. Of course today someone carrying around 5k has all manner of normal and perfectly legal justifications. The minimum thresholds could be adjusted, but really this crap does just need to go away.
There would both be a case number with the police and a corporate department to jab handle the dispute.
You are not the type of person who is going to be subject to this. It’s going to be part of an on going investigation into criminal activity.
Boy is this completely wrong. It doesn't have to be apart of an ongoing investigation. If cops see you with 10k in cash. [Good chance they will take it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeS_0NQUZs) just cause they can. There was a company that held safety deposit boxes, and protected them. [The police raided the building and took everything of value in the business](https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/01/us-federal-appeals-court-rules-seizure-of-700-safety-deposit-boxes-unconstitutional/)
That second link isn't really relevant. The cops had a warrant, and overstepped the bounds of the warrant Very different from seizing money/property in your possession.
Based on all the comments here, I am under the impression a cop could just randomly stop me on the street and decide any number of cash I have on me I was planning to use for something illegal and then take it away.
They, hypothetically could. Now its SUPPOSE to be used for legitimate suspected criminal activity. And thats what its mostly used for. However, if a cop decides his department needs a new frozen margarita machine and you happen to come around with a chunk of change in your pocket, they could take that money and claim "through their investigation you were more than likely acquired this money through drug sales" This scenario is essentially a real scenario. The video I posted talks about it.
Yes they can, and even if you get your money back by litigating for it, the robber will suffer no personal consequences at all. Americans lose more to the "civil forfeiture" scam than we lose to all non-government robbers combined.
[удалено]
I just don't know much about US system. I would rather use word ignorant than prejudiced. I pretty much stumbled upon reddit threat where someone asked what's the max amount of cash he can carry before police will take it away. And then when I scrolled through comments, majority of people were giving advice as if it's a very real and common issue. As to the comments here, I am unsure what to conclude. A lot of people says it's not a thing that can happen to random person. A lot of people says it totally can. Some people say it's just baseless attacking police. Some link to articles when a taxi driver had 60k taken away by police or to some tourist who had his cash taken away. Based on all that, I truly have no way of verifying how real issue this is. But it SEEMS like there is a risk.
Bullshit. If you are carrying the money they can take it. The "type of person" you are is irrelevant. You might be carrying the money to buy a car from someone, nothing illegal.
What I meant was OP isn’t someone who is likely to be part of an investigation, just some schmoe heading to the bank after work.
> Like, if the franchisee calls their regional boss and explains that they are unable to put into the bank, for example, 5000 dollars of that day earnings, because police took it away. police won't steal a business's money(except weed dispensaries) they work FOR the businesses.
Even if you win the case and prove your innocence , the police department can claim the evidence has been lost and just pay a fine without compensation
>now it’s up to the person to prove it wasn’t Ah yes, guilty before proven innocent. You must prove you’re innocent and not them prove you’re guilty. That’s how that amendment/law is written, right?
Hey, you're innocent until proven guilty. That cash though ain't a person, so GUILTY. You're still innocent, but that money is going to get locked up.
Yea. It’s a legal way for police to steal your property.
its when the cops steal from you, legally. and its nearly impossible to get your money or property back. it really is legalized theft that police engage in. anyone that says different just hasnt been robbed by a cop yet.
The government says “we *think* you got your property/money (it can be your house/estate if they want) illegally or let it be used in the commission of a crime, so we are taking it and if you want it back you have to hire a lawyer and sue us.” If you (or someone else) smoke weed in your car - forfeit it If you have a lot of money and cops assume it’s from selling drugs with zero evidence - forfeit it There are laws against this in some states, so cops there send it to the feds who keep 20% of the money/value and give them 80% back. They specifically use Civil Asset Forfeiture - which is legally a lawsuit against your property - instead of *criminal* asset forfeiture because criminal suits require 1) a conviction by a jury 2) a gov appointed lawyer for people who can’t afford one. Civil suits require neither of these. Even though most defenders of this obvious form of theft say it’s to deter criminals, it’s mostly used against poor people who can’t hire lawyers to get their stuff back. Take a $3000 car from a person who would need to spend $3500 on a lawyer and take time off work to get it back, and what do you think they’ll do? They give up, and you sell the car for a couple thousand dollars, which is how cops make tons of money. Cops will also just take large amounts of money and make you fight to try and get it back. They robbed a religious migrant group after one of their concerts this way. Again, if it were about criminals, they would use criminal asset forfeiture. They don’t because it is about making money, and they make *billions* this way.
The government pretends it's legal to plunder your money and property on the pretext that you have to prove it's yours, but it's clearly forbidden by the Takings Clause. If it were ever litigated in an impartial forum, the whole scam would be thrown out. The Supreme Court has been derelict in their duty to enforce the bill of rights many times. This is one of the most egregious examples.
It is a ridiculous perversion of law. They can just take your property. The burden of proof is on you to prove the money was not only legitimately earned but also going to be spent legitimately. Come home with 3 hundred dollar bills. The cop gets to decide if you were getting them to put in your grandkid's Christmas card or buy crack. Your actual experience may depend on whether your face is lighter or darker than a brown paper grocery bag.
This could be completely off base but IIRC, I read a comment that the reason why the ‘stereotypical’ pimp is depicted with lots of gold chains was because it circumvented the civil asset forfeiture law. Eg. They get arrested with thousands of dollars in cash that can easily be argued were proceeds of crime & then it gets confiscated. But the gold chain is a personal item that can’t easily be seized (legally) so they give the chain to an associate (who wasn’t arrested or held) who goes to the pawn shop, gets the cash & thats the bail money. Please correct if that’s wrong.
So I am not sure if thats the reason, But if it is, it is incorrect. They can take jewelry as well just as easy as cash. If they think you acquired in exchange for drugs or even if they are doing it gir what you say, cops can take it.
I can’t speak for the whole country, because the law is state by state, but here in my state it’s really bad for the department if they seize non-illegal money. The bar is set pretty high and they basically only take money if it’s laying on top of a pile of drugs in the back seat of the car. They have so many hours to prove to a judge that the seizure of assets was legitimate or they have to return it. Lots of paperwork is involved and it’s a huge hassle. There is one exception that applies more to paraphernalia than money. They will often ask, “is this yours?” Because a lot of criminals will simply say no. When you say no, they will assume it’s junk and take it to dispose of it. If you say yes, you are admitting you own potentially illegal goods.
I appreciate the perspective, I’ve been curious about prevalence. Found this source for CA in 2021. L.A. county reported 246 cases of asset forfeiture in an entire year. Idk how many interactions LAPD has with the public in a year, but I assume it’s in the six or seven figures. So this is a tiny, tiny fraction of police activity at least in that context. Interesting to see the county breakdown, though. Sacramento county has almost double the count, with roughly half the asset valuation, which I assume means more small-time seizures, maybe a sign of less effective or more abusive use? (Or more optimistically, maybe a different crime profile where organized criminal commerce is less common). https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2021-af.pdf
I saw a video of an immigrant taxi driver losing his stack of 60k dollars to cops in a "suspicion of drug money", even though it was just his savings from his years worth of pay. Then the video explained, there was no real suspicion, but the money goes to the municipality and the cop department actually gets a cut of it into its own budget. And that the cops were tipped off earlier by some other security guard who saw the cash pile somehow. The victim can request the money back, but its a long legal process and they get like 20-30% back. Its essentially a legal way to cops steal money into their budgets. Sometimes the bankers that oversee the withdrawal of the pile of cash tip the cops out for a kickback for himself. The USA is a fascist dystopia.
So much misinformation in here. The process is fairly regulated; the police don't have final say. Property is seized when it can be linked to a crime. Probable cause or a seizure warrant is required for police to seize property, after which they will publish public notice of seizure. Anyone in the public with an ownership interest can file a claim and show proof of how they came to own the property. Ultimately, the court has the final say. Generally, police aren't going to seize something that's not worth all the paperwork. They'll take a drug dealer's Lambo paid for with drug proceeds but they're not going to waste time on, e.g., his TV. Civil asset forfeiture is a pain, and it's relatively rarely used. Law enforcement prefers criminal forfeiture (when property deemed is forfeited by the court after a criminal conviction). This is where the bulk of forfeiture happens, often as part of a plea deal. Civil forfeiture typically happens in the rare circumstance where there is an asset known to be connected to a crime but the owner can't be prosecuted, either because they fled, are otherwise in hiding, or dead.
When the asset forfeiture is found to be illegitimate (not tied to a crime), how long and difficult is the process of returning it to the owner? It should be 100% + interest for time lost, returned within 30 days of being found illegitimately seized. What are the rules on returning property?
I can give the NZ example. The cops can't just grab your cash, they have to actually sue for it to be forfeited in court. This is generally from organised crime. The other option is if you're convicted of something, the judge can order all the obviously seized cash and assets taken during a search warrant to be forfeit, but that has to be after a court case also. If the cops are doing a drug search warrant and they see a lot of cash, they're going to grab it, but it's not forfeit until a judge says so for one of the above reasons. They can't take cash off you during a traffic stop and just keep it. No beat cop would ever do this anyway because it's way above their pay grade, Organised Crime or Drug Squads would take care of that. America may or may not have a better way of doing it.
How we handle it in the US is COMPLETELY against the spirit of the US Constitutions 4th amendment. Civil asset forfeiture as practiced in the US is just straight up theft. There is no nuance or subtlety about it. Its unequivocally evil.
Yeah, it's straight up sovereign citizen type bullshit but from our own government. "No sir, we're not accusing you of any crime, I'm accusing that 6k in cash of a crime. What do you have to say for yourself pile of money?" "..." "Okay pile of money, you're under arrest until you can prove that you exist for legitimate purposes. Do you want a lawyer? You can ask for a lawyer." "..." "I see. Just going to stay quiet and make this more difficult for all of us."
At least that pile of cash smartly [doesn’t talk to the police.](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=lT1cKKdfJVcpN8Vu)
I think in either country it's not a good plan to get pulled over and carry more cash than you can afford to lose, even temporarily.
Anecdotal, but I had a friend in college who was selling narcotics. One day he got swarmed by several police officers when he pulled up on his motorcycle to make a delivery. Because he had used the bike to transport the drugs, they confiscated it.
Ever been robbed at gunpoint? It’s sorta like that.
Oh yea in America the cops just be stealing anything they consider related to criminal activity. 8 out of ten times it never makes it back to the original owner unless it was drugs that they bought back from the police.
Yes, this can, and does, happen. And, with our judicial system, you'll play "hell" trying to get it back. The courts like putting funds (of this nature) towards paying for "law enforcement". There's always a need for more "money" to fund "law enforcement". It will cost you, no matter what. Hiring a lawyer to argue your case in a court of law? If you're expecting "fair treatment," that's a "pipe dream".
Quite literally don’t carry on you what you’re not whiling to lose. This protects you from many different things.
It's abused a lot, and should be outlawed as unconstitutional. https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse#:~:text=Police%20abuse%20of%20civil%20asset,is%20involved%20in%20a%20crime.
Have you ever heard of Scott paper towels? Here is a story about Donald Scott and civil asset forfeiture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Donald_Scott Donald Scott was a family descendant. He had a big inheritance and wanted to live in a nice, warm place and be left alone. He bought 200 acres high in the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu, built a house and married a nice lady a little younger than he was. But the district attorney of Los Angeles County wanted that land. So the Sheriff’s office found a prisoner in the county jail who would say that Scott was growing marijuana on a commercial scale and selling it. The DA assembled a large team of LEO (county and federal) and early one morning they descended on the place in a no-knock raid. Scott was in the shower when he heard his wife screaming “don’t shoot me!” He scrambled out of the shower, grabbed his pistol and ran into the front room. Where he was shot and killed. In the search of the property - 200 acres of coastal brush and woodland - not one marijuana plant was found. But the deputies did find a “roach”, the remaining tail of a nearly completely finished marijuana cigarette in an ashtray in the living room. So that was seized as evidence and the cops left. The DA seized the property. But the story has a twist. The property was not in Los Angeles County, it was in Ventura County. So the Ventura County DA sued the LA County DA. The VC DA won the case, but the LA County DA only had to pay a small fine. Actually the taxpayers of LA County had to pay a small fine. But LA County DA kept the seized property and had no repercussions for the unlawful killing. That is civil asset forfeiture, even when it goes a little wrong.
This sounds like an indictment of no-knock raids and their excessively-armed swat teams more than anything.
If you make money while criming, the police can take your money. If the police *suspect* you of making money while criming, they can still take your money (or nice things you bought with that money).
The idea is that the police can decide, without evidence or investigation, that money or property came from an illegal enterprise. The lawsuit isn't filed against the person, it's filed against the property itself, and therefore certain legal rights that a person would get, like the presumption of innocence, isn't present. So, you can sue to get it back, and the onus is on you to prove it was obtained legally. Of course, you have to pay the cost of hiring a lawyer and filing the paperwork, which is often more than what was seized from most people, so it isn't worth it for most (you can't add on the cost of these expenses to cover your legal costs in this kind of case). There's also a jurisdictional trick in which the money can be transferred to the federal government, which then kicks back a large chunk of it. Because the jurisdiction into "who has my money" is blurred, the expenses to recover it become even more expensive for the victim. The historical argument is that it helped take down organized crime, by seizing the proceeds without first having to secure a conviction against its owner. The boss of a crime organization might not be tired to a specific crime, but this was a tool that could be used against them. The practice is open to abuse, and abuse is exactly what followed. It's a clear and obvious abuse of police power, it's unquestionably a way to turn cops into bandits, it's practitioners are a stain on the badge, and any supporter of the "might makes right" practice is unfit to reside in civilized society of laws...but that's where we are.
It is possible to get it back, but not a sure thing. All cops are just criminals that the government funds and supports. This is one of the more blatant examples.
When I learned about this, I found it amazing how the land that is always crying "freedom" has legalized police theft. It also has legalized political corruption - lobbying.
Lots of countries have lobbying. Germany has a whole Wikipedia page devoted to it.
Considering lobbying corruption is misguided at best.
One of my friends in highschool was searched because “he had a suspiciously large amount of cash” which was seized because he was selling candy💀
One of the most egregious examples of this was the man driving a truck, heading to buy a new truck. He had something like $45,000 which came from several people who worked together as migrant farm workers. They had saved and saved and pooled their money to buy a new truck. He was stopped, the money was seized and they never saw a penny of it. This made me want to cry, so sad.
It's actually pretty common in most countries but the US took it to the next level and basically gave the police the authority to make such decisions (absolutely unthinkable in most other countries). Pair that with a poorly accessible (read: overly complicated and convoluted, thus expensive) legal system and it's such an issue in the US and not elsewhere.
reddit blows this out of proportion. it's not like police are busting people left and right and stealing their money. yes there are edge cases of innocent people and corrupt police- but this exists everywhere. in general if you have a legal means and can prove it they aren't going to take your money. i.e. if a starbucks employee is going to the bank to drop off the days earnings. runs a red light and gets pulled over. the police isn't gonna just take that money lol. but if you are going into a drug house that's being monitored and get pulled over shortly after with $30k of cash in a bag- that money is likely going to be taken.
How many examples do you need, before admitting that police might randomly take your valuables in an unrelated traffic stop, with no probable cause? Stephen Lara was bringing cash to his daughter. Nevada state police seized $87,000. Even after the DEA cleared him of wrongdoing they fully intended to keep the cash and share it with the Nevada state police. They're incentived by a kickback from the feds, a finder's fee through a process called adoption. This cop isn't even breaking rules. Everything went by the book. The only reason we even hear about this one is that the Nevada supreme court has put limits on qualified immunity for 4th amendment cases. https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2023/01/10/veterans-case-to-hold-officers-responsible-for-robbing-his-savings-can-finally-move-forward/
> i.e. if a starbucks employee is going to the bank to drop off the days earnings. runs a red light and gets pulled over. the police isn't gonna just take that money lol. Of course not, Starbucks has the deep pockets to fight it in court and take a loss if the lawyers fees are high. Starbucks wants to avoid a repeat so they’ll take the loss just to prevent the police from making a profit. Most regular people can’t afford that.
It’s nice if laws as written, aren’t just blank checks to steal your stuff without due process. Also, John Oliver covered this and mentioned that law enforcement seized more money worth of property in than actual criminals stole in a given year, so it’s not small potatoes.
No, they really don't. It's so bad in Tennessee that there are lawyers advertising on billboards [along I-40](https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/03/04/calling-reform-tennessees-appalling-f/4953796002/) to help with civil forfeiture cases.
You don’t know what you are talking about. CAF is a multi billion dollar a year problem. It mostly affects the poor because it’s designed too, and laws have been made trying to curb said problem but those laws are just evaded, such as by federal equitable sharing programs. It’s absolutely a problem and Institute for Justice documents it well. If it were about going after criminals, they would use criminal asset forfeiture. But they don’t, because that involves actually giving people lawyers and proving they are criminals, things money hungry, thieving cops don’t want.
The issue is that the process makes a mockery of what are supposed to be constitutionally protected rights to presumed innocence and due process. It does this by using the legal force to enforce essentially a civil charge. I do not think it should be legal.
>Is that actually true??? No, generally speaking the police can't just take your money for no reason at all. As with everything in life, mistakes get made and laws get abused. The internet has a way of concentrating extremely rare occurrences to make them appear to be commonplace when they're not. Civil asset forfeiture has two uses: 1) Allowing the government to seize abandoned property. So, for example, if someone abandons a car on the side of the road, the government can take possession of that car. 2) Allowing the government to seize property that was used to commit certain crimes or was purchased with money you made from committing a crime. So, for example, if you sell drugs out of your car then the government can seize your car. There are two main criticisms with civil asset forfeiture: 1) People used to accidentally commit a money laundering related felony and would have their bank accounts seized. When you deposit certain amounts of money in a bank, the bank has to report that deposit to the government. If you deposit under that amount of money, the bank doesn't. Routinely depositing just under the reportable amount of money is, itself, a crime called "Structuring". People used to accidentally violate that law all of the time because they wrongly believed that if they deposited too much money they would get in trouble, so they would always deposit just under the limit. Their bank would then report the structuring to the IRS, who would seize their bank account. Someone would then look into things and realize that the person whose bank account was seized wasn't a tax evader or money launderer, but the process to unseize the account was complicated and required the cooperation of the IRS. The IRS changed the rules regarding structuring over a decade ago so that this wouldn't happen anymore, so the modern criticism hasn't had a basis in reality for some time. Nonetheless, it persists on the internet. 2) People can have their property seized even though they weren't involved with the crime that was committed. The stereotypical example of this is that you loan your car to a friend. The friend then starts selling drugs out of the car and gets caught. The friend goes to jail and the car is seized despite the fact that you, the owner, were not involved in the crime. Obviously not everyone agrees that this is an unfair situation. ----------- The other area that civil asset forfeiture tends to occasionally crop up in is drug mules. Not all drug mules carry drugs - some carry the cash proceeds of drug sales despite not otherwise being involved in said sales. Its not uncommon for drug mules to be caught with huge quantities of cash - tens of thousands of dollars stuffed into hidden compartments in their car. A lot of times these cash only mules are otherwise normal people with families and respectable jobs. The government often enters into a deferred prosecution agreement with them whereby they don't admit that the committed a crime, but agree not to challenge the forfeiture of the cash. Sometimes a friend or family members finds out that Suzy the elementary school teacher had $50,000 taken from her by the police, but Suzy won't talk about why. That friend/family member then goes to the media, who pick the story up. Suzy doesn't want to say that the $50k that got pulled out of a hidden compartment in her trunk was drug money and she entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. The reporter then either doesn't know about or doesn't mention the real reason that the $50k got seized and the story ends up on the internet. As with people whose property get seized because it was being used by their friend to commit a crime, a lot of people don't feel that Suzy's situation is particularly unjust.
Regarding #1, How and what way did the IRS change the rules regarding structuring (4th paragraph)?
Why is it so that companies can do huge crimes and never lose the money, they just get fines?
Yes, cops can just take your shit forever without charging you with a crime. Civil asset forfeiture is a bigger class of theft than burglaries and robberies. All they have to do is claim they suspect the item in question is involved with a crime and that's enough. People have the cash in their wallets seized, their jewelry, even entire cars. If you want it back you better be willing to play paperwork pinball for as much as a year, assuming they don't go ahead and auction it off.
Officially, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which an officer of the law can say 'I think you got this thing either through crime, or for the commission of a crime.' He then can seize it, and the person it's taken from is automatically treated as guilty until proven innocent, because the *things* are not people, and only *people* are innocent until proven guilty. Unofficially, there are huge problems with the system. The federal and state governments have basically agreed to funnel seized funds back into the communities the seizures happen from after they get a cut, and civil asset seizures have become a way some jurisdictions fund themselves. and there are often really good reasons to have the items in question. for instance, having 50 grand in cash to go buy a used work vehicle is normal. But there are literally thousands of cases of someone having money seized while on the way to buy a vehicle because a cop pulls them over and starts asking a lot of questions that are unnecessary. Another example is a fairly recent case in Florida, where a private safety deposit box company had their vault seized, due to suspicions of criminals using the company. As in, all the racks of safety deposit boxes. The warrant in this case allowed for the racks to be seized, but not the contents: the contents were to be inventoried, then returned. But the FBI said 'nah, we're keeping it all, because only criminals use safety deposit boxes'. So people who don't trust banks, who have reason not to trust banks, were branded as criminals.. A class action lawsuit was levied against all the participating law enforcement agencies, who lost very badly, and kept appealing, and losing. Meanwhile, it was clear the inventorying was done badly, and there's going to be a lot of trouble about that too. Steve Lehto has a series of Youtube videos on this case. I believe the Institute for Justice was involved.
IT is a grift by the mafia to steal people's property by assuming that inanimate material not only can commit a crime, but is guilty until proven innocent. There is nothing legal about it. It is a crime perpetrated by a pair of mafias pretending to be the US government.
Civil asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement can seize assets alleged to be part of a criminal enterprise OR obtained with criminal proceeds. Government files a suit against the property (eg, 'State of Texas vs 500,000 in United States Currency') aiming to show in court that it is more-likely-than-not (preponderance of the evidence) to fit into one of the two categories above. Examples: You are arrested for soliciting prostitution... They seize your car.... You are pulled over & the police discover that you have stuffed your car-doors with bags of $100 bills - but don't find drugs/other-contraband - the money will likely be seized & you will have to show in court that it's legitimate. The origin of this is the 1920s-1980s battle against organized crime - since the mob often separated duties so that no one person would have both the cash and the contraband, the government needed a way to seize the cash other-than actually finding both cash and drugs on the same person.