CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program" 462
jfbilodeau writes The CBC is warning Canadians about a U.S. program where America law enforcement officers — from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters — are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public's cash as they can through seizure laws. "So, for any law-abiding Canadian thinking about an American road trip, here’s some non-official advice: Avoid long chats if you’re pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go. Don’t leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans. Don’t use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs. Don’t be too talkative. Don’t be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don’t have tinted windows. And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
Corrected link (Score:5, Informative)
The link is bad. American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money [www.cbc.ca]
The hosers are right (Score:5, Informative)
American police run an extra-legal extortion racket in the name of RICO laws. They can impound property giving the citizen no legal recourse. What do they do with the money? Buy military style riot gear and surplus MRAPS. Boy, I feel safer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't news to Canucks, we've been dealing with this in our own country from Quebec for years. It's gotten better since the RCMP started an investigation on it though, but I got one a few years back. The last time I was in Quebec was in 1988 when I went there I was in middle school, and it was part of the "tour the capital" bit. Quebec is like NJ, full of slime, corruption, and fully broken.
Re:The hosers are right (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey look, an article about Canada! I wonder if some ignorant racist english dude decided to randomly bash Quebec for no reason...
No reason? You mean the massive corruption inquiry [www.cbc.ca] going on right now? How about the other ones in Montreal, or Hull, I can keep going man. Let's point out the rest, my comment wasn't racist. Quebec isn't a race, it might be considered a segment of Canadian culture however. If you don't think there isn't massive corruption going on in that province, you either have never lived there, or don't know anyone who lives there now. Even your died in the wool Quebecker will tell you exactly how corrupt it is: "Very."
Re:The hosers are right (Score:4, Interesting)
First, it's all the same commission. It has a large mandate. Also, while it is popular (especially since that Globe and Mail article fulll of mistruths) to bash Québec for its corruption, I'd argue that we merely are more distrustful of our government, and so we tend to speak out more about these things. Anglophones seem like they want to sweep that stuff under the rug. I mean, you think your politicians are squeaky clean? The conservative party broke election laws with their robocalls, yet it's just one dude who's responsible for it, no one else knew about this in the party? And you really think the oil industry hasn't been "contributing" here and there to encourage Harper to not give a shit about the environment and sabotage climate change international conferences? What about that gun lobby shirt MacKay was wearing the other day? Makes the conservatives' insistence on getting rid of the gun registry quite interesting...
Let's not be naive here. All governments are corrupt. You need to be wary of these things and root out this corruption. That's what our commission is doing. I'd also remind you that the article was about policemen illegally taking tourists' money. That has nothing to do at all with what you typed. You just saw an opportunity to bash your favourite target.
Also, you might have guessed that I am actually a Québécois and that I live there.
I find it funny how Canadians always jump to the "Québécois aren't a race!" defense whenever they get called out on their Québec-bashing (an all too common practice). As if defining us as not a race somehow makes your discrimination less problematic. Call it whatever you want: racism, xenophobia, whatever. Some people in Québec have started calling it francophoby, which I guess is a pretty accurate term. The name doesn't matter. The concept of hating an entire people because their culture is distinct and different fom yours, and because they refuse to give it up and adopt your culture, that's certainly an attitude we need to get rid of.
A particularly interesting fact about Canadians' denial that this is racism is that they made it about racism first. "Speak white!" is something many francophones has been told by anglophones. There has been an association in the past for a long time in the minds of some anglophones between the white francophones of Québec and the black population of america. I wouldn't claim that we have had it as bad as they did, but it's not hard to see why this association was crated in the first place, if you know anything about our history.
Anyway, I take solace in the fact that it's mostly older generations of Canadians who are francophobic. When I lived outside Québec, most people my age were cool. Hopefully this trend keeps going, because there is no doubt that we will never feel home in Canada if we're always hated in this fashion.
Re:The hosers are right (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll pay the pittance for shipping online purchases and the extortion to Canada for "import fees" (wtf happend to free trade?), I'm not setting foot in American if I can help it.
Re: Corrected link (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to America, Canada's version of Mexico.
Based On New Washington Post Investigative Series (Score:5, Informative)
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just ask John McAfee.
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
Re:I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling here... (Score:5, Informative)
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
Two answers:
1) We aren't.
2) We need to be reminded now and then just how corrupt and borken the republic to our south actually is, as we tend to forget it and have trouble believing it.
Canadians, for all of our manifest imperfections, live in a relatively lawful country and take for granted that people in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand do as well. Despite being bombarded by news stories out of the US and UK in the past ten or fifteen years about how lawless things are getting there with their out-of-control security states we simply have trouble processing the practical implications.
Although... I renewed my passport recently and realized I haven't actually traveled to the US in over five years, whereas in the previous five years I had worked, lived and vacationed in the US. So we do kind of appreciate what a dangerous, arbitrary and lawless place the US has become, we just react by avoiding it rather than thinking much about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We have so many laws and regulations that it is probably physically impossible for a single individual to read all of them in a lifetime, and we are creating more every day. Even one segment of the law that almost everyone has to deal with each year is basically unintelligible as it is almost 4 million words long [washingtontimes.com] and that is just the US Federal tax code.
Now joking aside we are probably at a point where due to the number of laws we as a country are very similar to a lawless one. You kn
Re:I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling here... (Score:5, Informative)
So did Germans in Nazi Germany.
Not really. The Nazis got control of the Reichstag by forming a plurality coalition government with other fringe parties, then negotiated with Germany's two MAIN political parties (neither of which had a majority, but both of which had pluralities that were larger than the number of Nazis, but smaller than the coalition of minor parties assembled by the Nazis) to convince them that allowing them to be nominally in charge was a lesser evil than cooperating with their traditional arch-rivals.
At the risk of getting downmodded, the Nazi takeover of Germany's government is basically the same thing that happened to the US when the Tea Party ended up with enough seats in Congress to be disruptive, without actually being able to seize outright power. We just got damn lucky that they ended up being just a few seats short of achieving their goals before Americans realized how completely nuts most of them were.
I say this with direct first-hand knowledge, because I went to college and used to be friends with some of them... there are Tea Party strategists who've studied the Nazi Party's rise to power, their tactics, and the strategies that worked. The Nazis won tiny victories, then had some of the finest filmmakers to ever walk the earth produce documentaries that were mostly fiction, but had enough truth to be accepted by many as plausible. Many of those strategists are vaguely aware that they're playing with fire, but have NO IDEA just how dangerous the game they're playing can become almost overnight.
There's a reason why the Nazis held their biggest public events at night. They used the same tricks modern directors use to turn a few dozen extras into a cheering crowd big enough to fill a stadium. They herded the attendees into crowded areas, then blinded them with arc lights so they couldn't see that the stadium was mostly empty. They deafened them with loudspeakers that amplified the (small) crowd ITSELF. And creatively edited in footage from unrelated sporting events (that DID have large crowds) to convince everyone who saw the newsreel a few days later -- including the relatively small number of attendees at the event itself -- that it was WAY bigger than it really was.
In many cases, elected Nazi officials did things that were blatantly illegal, or at least ambiguously taboo, and did it amidst a media firestorm they stoked with contrived moral outrage. They piled HUGE lies onto small lies, knowing that people would dismiss the big ones, but believe the more reasonable-sounding small ones. And every step of the way, they built up the exploits they got away until German voters started to believe they were legitimate, if not respectable.
Truth be told, most Nazi voters were fairly normal people. Many of them DID think the party's leadership was kind of nuts, but swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The Nazis used the same tactics used by modern religious cults to draw in families, then convinced them to cut off contact with friends and family members who left the party... and socially-pressure them into publicly displaying their support for the Nazi party, even if they privately voted for someone else.
We NEED to study and understand the Nazis. Not because they were in any way, shape, or form admirable (or even non-reprehensible), but because their tactics are alive & well today, and being actively used against us, and most people are fucking OBLIVIOUS to it. Over the past 70 years, we've hyperfocused so much on Nazi concentration camps that we've completely forgotten how they managed to totally pwn Germany itself... and as a result, we (Americans) don't recognize what we're seeing now as the latest manifestation of the same tactics that finally allowed them to take control of Germany, even WITHOUT a real majority. In a very real sense, the Nazis lost the ground war, but perversely won an enduring victory in the public relations realm that has scarred our society with an eternal belief that the Nazis wer
Broken link (Score:2, Informative)
The link in the article is cut off and gives a 404. Here is the correct link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/a... [www.cbc.ca]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome to America! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the police are thieves.
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are capitalist thieves! Ah, but I repeat myself.
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
Re: Welcome to America! (Score:4, Insightful)
Capitalism is also a legalized system of universal stealing. Good example is the USA, built on stolen land (even what they bought was stolen property) often with stolen labour.
The truth is that there is always a class of people who believe in theft and often they become the government and pass laws legalizing theft. Shit the very first legislation passed in England back in the 13th century included a provision allowing closing the commons.
Re: Welcome to America! (Score:4, Insightful)
neither you, nor the gp, has any clue what hte words "capitalism" and "communism" mean.
im just as critical of bad actors as anyone here, but in order to have any meaningful discourse you must use proper definitions, not merely a sense of vitriol.
Re: (Score:3)
They're both theoretical economic systems that in the real world do not scale up much beyond the village level. Communism attracts the authoritarian types to government and capitalism attracts the corruptible types to government, both with some cross over.
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like so many other 'capitalists' in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Land of the flea, home of the slave.
Re: (Score:3)
Land of the whipped topping cheeseburger, home of the comatose diabetic.
Re:Welcome to America! (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxation is a mandatory subscription to government services. Since I doubt you would want to opt out of those services (police, military, roads, judicial system etc.) it's not theft. Anyway, society decided that anyone who is part of it must subscribe, and if you leave society you can stop paying. Again, I'm going to assume you don't want to leave.
Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
As a U.S. citizen, I'm baffled as to why courts have accepted the validity of civil forfeiture laws. It strikes me as a blatant violation of our Constitution.
When nationalistic Americans brag about our Bill or Rights, I wonder which version they're excited about: the version one gets from a plain reading of its text, or the twisted monstrosity that the three branches of government have foisted upon us.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
It's great that our allies are starting to shame us for this! This is such an embarrassing failure of our ideals, and there's really no excuse.
The war on drugs got police in the habit of supplementing their budgets (and wallets) with seized cash. Policy allowing this trained a generation of police that seizing cash was not only OK, but important for the budget. There's little we can do as individuals, but as a democracy we need to push back against this, strongly.
There's no corporate corruption at work here that we need to fight, just the need for governments at all levels to start directly outlawing civil forfeiture without a specific criminal case to tie it to, and even then to keep cash and legal valuables in escrow, not in the cops hands, and insure their prompt return unless forfeiture is a specific legal penalty for a crime that someone is found guilty of.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it? Because it seems to me that it's perfectly in line with the actual ideals US has embraced for its entire existence: to the victor go the spoils.
"Land of the Free" has never existed, except in the same realms of propaganda "Worker's Paradise" did. All that's happening now is that oppression is being doled out somewhat more equally than in the past. But this has always been the real face of America to anyone who's not pow
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow up. Any country looks bad when compared to a perfect castle in the sky. For almost 2 centuries the United States stood tall among the nations of the world.
I'm not sure the native Americans would agree.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
I was born in America, and thus I am as much a "native American" as one of my great-Grandfathers, a Cherokee, or anyone else born here. There were other people here before the Cherokee came: they displaced the previous tribes to inhabit their lands. No doubt there were wave after wave of conquerors over the ~13,000 years since the Clovis culture. [wikipedia.org] Heck, reading through Wikipedia, they maybe weren't the first humans here either.
No nation lasts forever, due to conquest or occasionally starvation, but the US has a darn good track record of living up to the ideals expressed by the Founders, by the standard not of angels but of men governing men in the real world. This sort of police corruption is distinctly un-American, and we shouldn't put up with this shit.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
"US has a darn good track record of living up to the ideals expressed by the Founders"
So the founders were in favor of things like the "constitution free zone" which covers most Americans (by population, not land mass)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your... [aclu.org]
- Spying on its own citizens (see Snowden).
- large numbers of citizens in jails and prisons for longer terms for lesser crimes?
- Imperialism via forward operating bases spanning the globe?
- Presidents starting "simi-wars"? Actually more like "armed conflicts", not actual "wars" as only congress can declare war. So war-like but not really...
Re: (Score:3)
Overthrowing democracies around the world? Systematic genocide? Internment camps for its own citizens? Funding dictators? Nuking civilians? Rampant racism?
Your memory seems to be rather spotty, or you think those things are awesome. It's got to be one of the two.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to look a bit closer at the history of the US. The persecution of minorities and less powerful is something that has a very long history in the US. They don't tend to cover it in grade school history, but if you read the actual histories, you'll see it.
OTOH, those who romanticize the Indians are equally wrong. They were more done to than doing, but they also weren't innocents. They were, however, less powerful, so they couldn't enforce treaties. You could also investigate how the Chine
Re: (Score:3)
As the old saying goes ...
For an American, 100 years is a long time.
For a European, 100 miles is a long distance.
The Roman Empire stood for centuries. And even its decline took centuries. Don't understimate the inertia of an empire.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
... in line with the actual ideals US has embraced for its entire existence: to the victor go the spoils.
That's it! I'm naming my kid Victor.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, starting with Nixon, one political party has made political hay with "litmus tests" for the appointment of politically correct judges, with opposition and voting out (where possible) of any judges who are "soft on crime." Is it any surprise that our judiciary is now full of political hacks?
Re: (Score:3)
This is not just one party. Both major parties for a long time have figured out that you never lose a vote by being harsh on crime but will lose elections if there's even an accusation of being soft on crime. The difference starting with Nixon is that this was being applied at a very high level rather than being about local or state elections.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
The Drug War kleptocracy, like the National Security State, and the Plutocracy we live in has been nurtured by both Republicans and Democrats for decades, nay, generations now. Neither party has opposed these trends. It is wrong to say that they are both alike, but in these essential areas of freedom and democracy, they have both been happy to be on the take, and to wield ill-gotten power.
War on cash? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the police departments, this kind of robbery is just a way to grab some cash. But I wonder if this is accepted on a political level to get rid of non-traceable monetary transactions altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
When nationalistic Americans brag about our Bill or Rights, I wonder which version they're excited about: the version one gets from a plain reading of its text, or the twisted monstrosity that the three branches of government have foisted upon us.
I think it's the one that exists only in their heads.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court has ruled that civil forfeiture laws are, in fact, subject to the restrictions on excessive fines. Very specifically, and as I recall, on a case that involved seizure of money at the border.
Nobody knows about this, and a foreign tourist won't have any inclination to come back to the US - in a year or two, when it comes to trial - and spend more on legal fees than what was stolen.
The only way to stop this is to criminally prosecute corrupt cops. Which happens from time to time, but not nearly enough.
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
I think at the very least, if no lawsuit judgement is reached then the money MUST be returned (technically this is a civil lawsuit that is being used as a justification, not a criminal proceeding). The idea that it was "probably" obtained through drug money is ridiculous, it needs to be proved. And the forfeiture must happen AFTER the lawsuit, not before.
California passed laws severely restricting this under state law, and limited amount of proceeds police are allowed to keep from forfeiture. But then the police found a loophole, they pass it on to the feds since Federal law is much harsher in this regard and the local law enforcement is allowed to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. It's a built in incentive to cheat. So even if the states have implemented reforms (ie, California does require a conviction before real estate or vehicles can be forfeited) the Federal law is still broken and is often used to get around this, especially in regards to drug laws. The Federal laws need fixing first, it's no good trying to fix stuff piece meal at the state level (especially as some states are een more onerous then the feds).
Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
It may help to remember how this current trend got it's legs.
Reagan is newly in office, and the country's mood is: we're tired of being ripped off and taken advantage of.
Pablo Escobar is bringing in tons of cocaine in broad daylight, and seemingly, no one can stop him. The Coast Guard has destroyer-sized ships and helicopters. The helicopters can catch Mr. Columbia's cigar boat, but are unarmed, and not allowed to shoot anyway. They can, and do, often wave at each other.
The Sheriff and even State police don't have boats to catch them, don't have helicopters available to just patrol, and if they do catch them; they have revolvers and shotguns against Uzis and AKs. In the face of all that, they catch a few anyway. But it turns out that it doesn't hurt the cartels at all to imprison their mules. Hell, it's their retirement plan, and keeps wages & seniority under control. Heh.
So the state auctions off the confiscated speedboat, and guess who's there to bid on it? Guess who cannot bid on it under any circumstances? The Sheriff himself. Not that I'd want him to, using my tax money that I'd rather go to schools or whatever. Pablo buys it back for a quarter of the new price. But sometimes he has to buy a new one. How much do you think that hurt his business? He can outspend the sheriff ten to one, and worse than that, it would be a stupid strategy to try and outspend the drug lord on guns and boats. The exact same strategy we were about to begin using on the Soviets, and it works.
In 1976, cocaine was a rich person's drug, or at least a big-city drug. in 1981, everybody and their 15 year old cousin in Mississippi could get it. Cocaine is suddenly everywhere, and it's profitable as shit; $100 1980 dollars a gram. (Of course that's not even pure cocaine; that's street cut).
What was pitched to us, and what we agreed to, was that yes; the Dade Sheriff could keep the cigar boat if he painted law enforcement colors on it, and used it to interdict the guys that used to own it. And while he's not allowed to sell the captured cocaine himself, he was allowed to keep the cocaine money, since it was bound for Columbia anyway, forever to disappear from our economy.
At that time, that was what was meant by the phrase, the "War on Drugs". They begged for the authority to take possession and shoot back with a quickness, just like real soldiers do in a real war. And hell, these were foreigners bringing AKs in, and didn't care who they shot. Of course, shoot them and take their stuff. What the hell are you thinking; waving? Sounds like Carter. We're done with that.
Things have come a long way since we had that mindset. I'll leave you with this thought: All government always grows, always; and sooner or later, it morphs into something you didn't expect.
Re:Nobody took it far enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting AC just because:
The US revolution was unique. Essentially it was one government breaking away from another government, and not an overthrow of the current one.
People don't know how serious a revolution gets, which is why I respect the zeal of groups like the three-percenters, but I consider them foolish since they are not going to effect change by threatening armed revolt. Instead, they need to change what they do at the ballot box, not at the ammo box. Some things about revolution:
1: It will be stopped quickly. If push came to shove, .40 pistols and AR-15s won't do much against mercenary troops, UAVs, gunships, and Sarin gas containers. One brief shock and awe treatment, and most "revolutionaries" will be slapping the Flexicuffs on themselves and their families.
2: It will be violent. Most Americans are not used to real violence. At most, they play Call of Duty.
3: In a revolution, the most brutal and violent psychopaths will be running the show. ISIS shows what happens when there is a power vacuum and the result of no government in a region. Almost every professor at the university I went to who worked/taught in that region said a group like ISIS would form, and they were right.
4: What group would end up on top? Christianity is declining, and Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years (well, materialism is the #1 religion in the US, but spending a life chasing the dollar isn't really "official"). Would people want the US to end up like Iraq with sectarian violence forever and ever, separated by racial and religious lines? I'm sure a lot of people worldwide would love this, but not people living here.
5: There are players sitting on the sidelines. The US is the world's #1 food exporter, to the point where many nations would starve if shipments ceased. If the US government got weak enough, it would be inevitable that China would invade so they would have a secure, fertile area for crop growing. Already, they have a monopoly on pork companies in the US (which is why the price of bacon has doubled this past week.) Other players would love a chunk of the US territory, be it a return of Texas to Mexico, or a Middle Eastern nation deciding they are tired of the region and choose one of the Carolinas as a new Damascus or Dubai. What happened to the native Americans can easily happen to the current US population should the government get weak.
6: The US is a mitigating power globally. Should the US weaken and stop being a player, it would only be a matter of time before the Pacific Rim got hot. If one thinks the Middle East is bad, wait until China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, even Australia start battling it out over racial and territorial disputes. China is getting belligerent , and Japan is re-militarizing.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
7: I'm sure people celebrate this, but even though states' rights are "cool", such as the Colorado candidate for governor who wants to take ownership of all Federal land and sell/privatize it, a bunch of states will be easily overrun by a foreign invasion force. The only reason why hostile actors have not fought wars on US soil directly in a century is the "united" part of the US.
8: People forget that the US government was hammered out as a 13 way compromise. Think that would happen again in this climate where the government shuts down almost every non-election year (and people forget th
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much this.
TL;DR, careful what you ask for, you might get it and peaceful conflict resolution always beats the alternative.
Re:Nobody took it far enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, except for #4. Islam at the top religion in the US in 10 years is just silly talk. It would require MASS conversion.
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...possibly. How much of local cops' seizures actually belong to the feds and are "shared" back by this program, and how much are seizures under local authority--or could be made so if the local cops think they won't get federal seizures back? The latter can't be constitutionally claimed by the feds, although i
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to be greedy. Simply requiring the law enforcement to pay interest and to pay attorney fees should be sufficient.
Plus lost wages to go to court, plus inconvenience charge, plus opportunity costs.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to be greedy. Simply requiring the law enforcement to pay interest and to pay attorney fees should be sufficient.
That might help US Citizens, but Canadians just driving through aren't going to want to halt their life, go back to the country that ripped them off, find a reputable attorney that knows these laws, and then come back AGAIN for the court date, unless it's a pretty large amount of goods stolen by the authorities. After all, not only do they run the risk of getting skimmed again, they also run the risk of getting scammed by their lawyer, AND they have to pay room/board/transportation PLUS take the extra time off work required for the visits. Most people I know just took it as a lesson not to visit that part of the US again and cut their losses.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
If police want to seize anything, they should charge the citizen with the appropriate crime, and take him or her to court. Anything else is unconstitutional BS.
Yes, not having the proceeds go to charity just turns it into an open invitation for corruption (and any PD that depends on these funds for operating expenses is certainly corrupt), but the problem is deeper than that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In many places, the court itself shares a percentage of the take. I'm quite sure I wouldn't like to be on trial in that court when the judge can't help knowing 10% of it will help pay his salary.
Anything short of destruction of the seized property leads to perverse incentives.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
If police want to seize anything, they should charge the citizen with the appropriate crime, and take him or her to court. Anything else is unconstitutional BS.
Exactly! Charge and convict the owner for the crime they are alleging took place. How this perversion of the 4th amendment is allowed to stand is anyone's guess. But the fix is obvious, if there isn't enough evidence to convict a person of a crime then there isn't a crime. There is no end run saying the money did it, that like a 4 year old blaming a stuffed animal for throwing food. Civil forfeiture doesn't make any sense and should be repealed, period.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a brave new world in the USSA. NSA tracking (probably a fraction of what we know about), police kicking you out of your home without charges, and so on. The worst part is we have a whole new generation of cops and lawyers growing up where all this is the norm. It makes the next encroachment seem that much less outlandish.
Either get off the grid or get wealthy / connected. Or be content being cattle.
Shouldn't be a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why any one in Canada would want to visit that cesspool we have what they have only without the suck and with a lot more natural spaces to enjoy.
Re:Shouldn't be a problem (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know why any one in Canada would want to visit that cesspool we have what they have only without the suck and with a lot more natural spaces to enjoy.
Apparently, however, a serious lack of commas.
Re:Shouldn't be a problem (Score:5, Funny)
the commas just clutter up the natural spaces.
Original article in Washington Post (Score:4, Informative)
CBC's article is just a Canadian take on things. The original article (just as scary) is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Original article in Washington Post (Score:5, Informative)
CBC's article is just a Canadian take on things. The original article (just as scary) is here:
Well, yes. But it's hardly "original" -- this is a problem that has been profiled extensively for years, yet few people seem to realize how far it extends. A couple of times over the past year, when posters on Slashdot mentioned random forfeitures that happened to them, they were met with comments saying, "You must have done something suspicious" or "What's the rest of the story," and I tried to provide links to point out the systemic problem, but have been met with ignorance and resistance.
For a sample of past coverage, here's an extensive piece from The New Yorker [newyorker.com] a year ago, a piece from Reason [reason.com] in 2012, a piece from Forbes [forbes.com] in 2011, pieces in Slate [slate.com] and The Economist [economist.com] from 2010, a detailed piece on NPR [npr.org] from 2008, etc., etc., etc. Here's an extensive account of problems with the system from PBS [pbs.org] almost 15 years ago (around the time that legal reform forced money to go to local municipalities in many cases rather than the federal government). The ACLU has been fighting this for decades [aclu.org].
I know some people here may be well aware of this problem, and others may find this shocking and new. Regardless, it's very sad that it may take other countries' shaming us into taking action to fix an unjust assault on our citizens that has been going on for many years.
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
You never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or conduct an illegal search. You may have just bought the car. It may have absolutely NOTHING personal in it. You still don't consent to a search.
Period.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The price may be that they get a dog to scratch your car.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
This is getting out of hand (Score:5, Interesting)
First the militarization of small town police departments, SWAT teams for serving routine warrants, rising incidents of shocking brutality and now law enforcement has devolved to the point of being little better than a band of petty thieves. This is getting pathetic and scary. Foreign countries are issuing warnings about the conduct of U.S. law enforcement personnel. Am I the only person who has a problem with that?
don't consent to a search (Score:4, Insightful)
> And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
Well, of course, but I'd say "don't consent to a search, ever. At all."
I have a story to tell (Score:4, Interesting)
TLDR; stay the fuck out of the US (Score:4, Informative)
They've been running this shake-down on Americans traveling out-of-state, too: http://www.newyorker.com/magaz... [newyorker.com]
Basically, if you're not a local, they'll pull you over for some piss-ant, often fabricated infraction, claim that they "smell weed" (especially if your plates are CO or WA) threate-^h...extort you with some scary-sounding charges (which you'll be greatly disinclined to accept when you're a considerable distance from home, not wanting a huge ticket, points on your license and a trial that you'll lose in a kangaroo traffic court) and then miraculously offer to "make it go away" if you fork over whatever cash and valuables you've got in your car, which they get to use to pad their budget or their own fucking wallets (because it's untraceable and you're in the middle of dogfuck nowhere, who's gonna know, right?)
This is *literally* sanctioned and institutionalized highway robbery and they've gotten away with THOUSANDS of them.
Consent to search (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been pulled over twice for minor offenses such as a burned out taillight bulb and then had my vehicle searched for no cause. The police said they smelled marijuana and didn't need my consent. Basically, all they have to do is lie and the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper as far as they are concerned. They found nothing either time.
These stories make me feel sick to my stomach (Score:3)
I hate stuff like this. I hate it because it is crooked and evil. I hate it because there is very little recourse for the average citizen to make against an attack like this.
Contact your congress reps, local and federal. Try to get them to change the law. What is happening in these stories should be illegal.
Re:law enforcement scams (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure there aren't any democrats supporting this unholy mess? Cause I bet this abomination has bipartisan support.
Re:law enforcement scams (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is only one group who puts them in a position to do it the Democrats?
Please there is no effective difference in US politics, it's the same group. Hell politician's change affiliation and still get elected. Sure one side tends to do one thing or another you need something to campaign on after all. Neither wants any real change.
Re:law enforcement scams (Score:5, Informative)
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime [ucsb.edu] in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
Re:law enforcement scams (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't believe this is a partisan issue. It's a matter of good and honest governance, which neither of the two major parties has clealry demonstrated in recent memory.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"Good afternoon, Officer. My time is valuable. Your time is valuable. Please don't waste time by asking questions I am not required to answer."
"Sir, Have you been drinking?"
"Am I required to answer that question?"
"No."
"Please stop wasting time. As I said, my time is valuable. Am I free to go now?"
etc.
Re:So wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
The next line won't be "Okay, gtfo."
It'll be: "Sir, please step out of the car."
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I like the idea of limiting my responses to legally identifying myself according to my state's laws, presenting any registrations or licenses potentially necessary, and then locking myself into a loop of, "am I being detained?" "am I under arrest?" "am I free to go?" I'm also smart enough to know that the any chance of the officer simply sending me on my way with a warning to keep my insurance card in the car and get a new tail-lamp next time I pass a Checker/Kragen/AutoZone flies right out the w
Re: (Score:3)
Your naivete is mind blowing.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Insightful)
Please send me a list of approved attire, standards of car cleanliness, and any other requirements for not appearing like a drug dealer.
I believe the primary rules for "not looking like a drug dealer" are:
1) be white
2) be middle-class
3) be middle-age
4) be male
5) be conventional in dress, behaviour and language
And really, if you aren't a white, middle-class, middle-age, conventional male, do you really have anyone but yourself to blame?
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:4, Informative)
You haven't been following this issue very much, have you? Siezures have been made where there was no proof, only suspicion (based on the flimsiest of evidence). As the owner, you don't have the right to challenge the siezure -- the siezure is made against the property itself.
I don't expect that I have much to worry about, but that probably has more to do with my socio-economic status and the color of my skin than any other factors.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Informative)
Neatly proving that you don't have a clue. Read this [reason.com] and see how asset forfeiture happens in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
No pretty sure police can't and don't do this in Canada. They actually have to arrest you and the money is evidence if purported to be proceeds of crime.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point: here in America you're *supposed* to be able to "do things that make you look like you are hauling drugs". You're supposed to be able to do whatever you want, as long as it's legal, no matter how illegal it looks.
Let's say I look like a burglar because I locked my keys in the house and now I have to climb in a window: the police have every right to stop me. If I'm (somehow) using my wallet to try and jimmy the window open, the police have a right to seize that wallet. But once I've shown that I'm not a burglar, I should get my wallet back.
The point of this article is, that's not actually how it works. From TFA:
"You’ll have the right to seek its return in court, but of course that will mean big lawyer’s fees, and legally documenting exactly where the money came from. You will need to prove you are not a drug dealer or a terrorist.
It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over. Sorry.
In places like Tijuana, police don’t make any pretense about this sort of thing. Here in the U.S., though, it’s dressed up in terms like “interdiction and forfeiture,” or “the equitable sharing program.”"
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm, 62K seizures in 13 years across the entire nation...
So, a bit fewer than 5K per year nationwide. Which is considerably lower than your chance of getting killed in an auto accident (about 33K per year).
So, while it's pretty clearly corrupt and of questionable Constitutionality, it's not so prevalent as to make it something to really worry about if I have seven times as much chance of being killed in an auto accident (or twice as much chance of being murdered).
Note that I am not endorsing this sort of behaviour by police/judges/feds. Merely pointing out that TFA is aiming to be rather more alarmist than reality requires....
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Informative)
That's just the cash. There's also the cars, boats, houses, businesses etc. About a year ago the CBC had a show on this including an interview with a motel owner who had his motel forfeited due to renting out a room to a drug user. He was as innocent as could be and eventually got his business back after much hassle but it seems forfeiting houses is also common. Interestingly they only go after stuff that is paid off.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, don't fall for this stuff. It's not like we are a police state (yet).
Oh yes you are. You just haven't been paying attention.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you are incredibility stupid, or actually doing something illegal, you have nothing to fear from 99.999% of law enforcement, and for that 0.001% of the time there is a risk, there isn't much you can do anyway. But you have the same things at home I'll bet.
Are you deliberately lying or is the problem that you have not yet learned to Google before posting extraordinary claims?
Your claim is directly contradicted by an article in the New Yorker [newyorker.com] that was probably pivotal in raising the alarm. Here is a small sample:
Yet only a small portion of state and local forfeiture cases target powerful entities. "There's this myth that they're cracking down on drug cartels and kingpins," Lee McGrath, of the Institute for Justice, who recently co-wrote a paper on Georgia's aggressive use of forfeiture, says. "In reality, it's small amounts, where people aren't entitled to a public defender, and can't afford a lawyer, and the only rational response is to walk away from your property, because of the infeasibility of getting your money back." In 2011, he reports, fifty-eight local, county, and statewide police forces in Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars. With minimal oversight, police can then spend nearly all those proceeds, often without reporting where the money has gone.
It takes only a pinch of common sense to realize that if you allow a group of people the right to stop law abiding citizens and take their money and possessions with no legal repercussions then this right will be abused.
In some places it costs well over $1,000 for a citizen to start fighting a seizure. If the cops took $500 or less then fighting and winning will cost at least $500 and likely thousands of dollars more.
In a backhanded way, you seem to be saying that the police in America are a bunch of nincompoops who haven't yet figured out that it is much easier to steal smaller amounts of money from people who can't or won't fight back than it is to steal larger amounts of money from people who can and will fight back.
The way the system is set up, it may be impossible to provide accurate statistics on what percentage of these civil forfeitures had anything at all to do with criminal activity because no criminal charges need to be filed and there are big disincentives that prevent even completely innocent people from fighting back.
Many of the anecdotal stories in the New Yorker article show how easy it is for civil forfeiture laws to be systematically abused by the police. Even if the original system was created with the best of intentions it has devolved into us basically paying the police handsomely to violate people's Constitutional rights.
Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
only one case where the seizure was found to be unjustified does not actually mean all the rest were really justified. (It also doesn't mean they weren't, of course. Insufficient data. But it feels unlikely that there were no other incorrect seizures; 65000 instances with no false positives is a better accuracy rate than almost any human activity.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Never carry lots of Cash (Score:5, Informative)
When I go on a road trip I always carry enough cash to buy gas to get to my destination should my credit card stop working.
I got pulled over in Nebraska and when I was getting my license out of my wallet the officer saw a $100 bill in there and ended up confiscating the $400 I had on me as suspected drug money without ever arresting me or even charging me with a crime.
I got a receipt and an affidavit indicating the amount seized and why. I petitioned the court for the return of my money and the court denied me saying that possession of that much cash constituted probable cause of drug activity and that I should be happy not to be in jail for drugs.
Re:Never carry lots of Cash (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why I have a personal policy of always costing them more money than they seize from me. You confiscated $400 from me? I'm going to arrange to use more than $400 in police resources. I will mail you enough letters that you'll spend more than $400 just responding to them. I'll sue in small claims court so you have to send a representative to get it tossed out, then hire a lawyer to send fancy letters forcing the department to hire another fancy lawyer to send responses back.