Oklahoma State Troopers Use New Device To Seize Bank Accounts During Traffic Stops (news9.com) 621
mi writes from a report via news9.com KWTV: KWTV writes, "You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture. That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime. Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money." But do not worry: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," said Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
We abandoned that shit here in the U.S. decades ago. We setup black sites to hold innocent people so they fall between the cracks of the constitutional system We even had to set up special courts specifically designed to circumvent constitutional rights and push victims through the system more rapidly and cheaply.
And the Republicans and Democrats just cry "terrorism" and "gun violence" and think that solves the nation's problems.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that they DON'T "circumvent" the Constitution- they're being used, quite simply criminally (as in acting without authority) in violation of the Constitution. The rub's in getting people to step up and assert their rights and incarcerate these people and start over with what was put in place over 200 years ago.
Before you remark...I'm biding my time. You simply die when you don't have numbers...kind of like Finicum did.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The supreme court of the US has upheld the general principle of civil forfeiture, sadly. So we need congressional reform. And there are people for reforming it. While some Republicans are for it (as reintroduced by the Reagan administration) there is still opposition to it from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party, there's support against it from Democrats too. Currently though the "tough on crime" sorts are winning, so even a congress member worried about civil rights can be timid about seeming to be soft on crime during election years.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a police-state, that does only apply to the police. A citizen is guilty if the police says so.
Re: (Score:3)
In a police-state, that does only apply to the police. A citizen is guilty if the police says so.
Yeah but in the case of civil forfeiture its not a citizen who is being presumed guilty until innocent, its the money (or other object).
Re: (Score:3)
So not only they take your money, they logic rape you as well.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my unprofessional political strategy. Bonus: once you get elected, you can fix the problem, and people think you are great.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck would Clinton want to do that? She's as much an enthusiastic supporter of this totalitarian shitshow as any other establishment politician!
Actually, even that's an understatement: A CLINTON HELPED CREATE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! [salon.com]
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of those "lets punish the evil people" memes run amok. This was originally created to deprive mobsters of the ability to defend themselves in court. As bad as enough as that is on principle, the underlying law has been expanded and abused over the decades so that it's applied to pretty much anything but organized crime.
Clinton was probably just a small part of the mob (the rampaging sort) when this stuff was first enacted.
This is why you have to be careful about you get manipulated into supporting.
The incentive structure that drove the Inquisition (Score:5, Interesting)
... the underlying law has been expanded and abused over the decades ...
Which was predictable - and predicted at the time.
RICO and other asset forfeiture statutes recreate the incentive structure that drove the Spanish Inquisition:
- The inquisitors rolled into town.
- They busted some people for allegedly being a heretic, witch, etc. Typically a relatively well-to-do farmer with lots of assets and some jealous neighbors.
- They tortured them until they had something to use as "evidence". (If all else failed, "The Needle" would find one of the spots on the skin (where the nerves come up, like the blind spot in the eye) where pain sensitivity is absent and the victim doesn't flinch when pierced.)
- Then they did them in, seized their assets, and split it between the Inquisitors and the local authorities.
Needless to say there was a strong financial incentive to find ever more heretics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell that to the Dutch. The siege of Amsterdam alone killed thousands by starvation over an 80-year period - the Inquisition was at least as much a military power as a policing power and should be equally blames for the crimes of their navy. The very concept of "heresy" being a crime flies in the face of any concept of justice. Now only an idiot would claim the protestants were any BETTER. John Calvin executed his best friend for heresy and protestants in Iceland had habit of invading monasteries and forcin
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil forfeiture was instigated as a step up against the war on drugs during the early Reagan administration. After being litigated through much of the early 80's the supreme court gave it constitutional blessing. Many of the rights we've lost over the last 20 years are the direct result of prosecuting a war on drugs against our own citizens.
If we want to end these abominations of law we MUST end the war on drugs. End prohibition 2.0.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
The library ended up being built on land expropriated based on eminent domain [wikipedia.org] so the tactic you proposed is, like I said, underhanded, detrimental to Clinton campaign (as it opens a can of worms that would be better sealed shut) and, in general, undemocratic.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Why would she fix it? She can then say that she'll fix it next time she runs.
War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.
The perception was that drug dealers were living high off of their ill-gotten gains: owning houses, boats, off-road trucks... and flaunting their wealth in the community.
We didn't have enough evidence to charge them with drug-related crimes, so we invented civil asset forfeiture to compensate: if you even *looked* like you could be a drug dealer, you could have your assets confiscated and sold.
And the proceeds can go directly to the police department to further their anti-drug campaign. Under this new law, drug crime became a self-correcting problem as the proceeds went to fund ever-more expanded police operations. ...except that it didn't. Drug use is as high as it ever was [google.com], police can confiscate anything you own on a whim, and the action is not tied to evidence or charges, and neither the police nor the prosecutors can be held liable for mistakes and errors.
This was a problem for 20 years, and eventually the US attorney general made a ruling that in general, you can't sieze cash [justice.gov] as civil-asset forfeiture.
(But the OP is apparently about state-sponsored seizure, not federal.)
This will to go to the supreme court, will cost about $2 million in wasted effort for some poor schmuck, cost about 10 years wasted time for some poor schmuck, and be overturned. In the meantime, OK state cops get a free pass to steal money from anyone.
And of course, when the government is eventually found doing something illegal, they are told to stop. When a company is found doing something illegal, they pay a small fine and don't admit to any wrongdoing. When a citizen is found doing something illegal, they go to jail.
And when a citizen is wrongly accused, it costs a lifetime of wages and a year or two of life effort just to escape the state's error.
What I don't understand is why more police aren't being shot in this nation. The police are trashing lives on a whim, and some of those trashed lives will have nothing to lose. I haven't had a polite interaction with a cop in 20 years, and most people say that the best policy is to avoid them at all costs. Parents are starting to teach their children not to call the police for help.
The police hurt a lot of people, unnecessarily, and a lot of people are getting desperate.
It surprises me that we're not in full-out revolt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
If both the R and the D support this policy, for whom is there to vote?
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as we use a FPTP voting system, hold closed primaries, and have dozens of other factors that all cause a natural digression into what we call the two party system: thirty votes will be a wasted vote.
the only way 3rd parties ever have a shot in this system is when the main two are so disliked (legitimately or not) that everyone floods to the 3rd party. this year may be the closest third parties ever get to having a real shot, but the simple truth is we don't actually have a viable 3rd party. Greens a
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason people vote based on wanting to win even if what they are winning is a free punch in the nuts.
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Informative)
Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Currently polling around 10%.
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see, in the upcoming presidential election we can choose from:
A totalitarian legalist running dog lackey of financial capital
or
A jingoistic egomaniac authoritarian capitalist with amusing hair
Does anyone really wonder why more people don't vote? The better question is why, with so much evidence to the contrary, some many people still believe they have a voice in government.
Re: (Score:3)
People do have a voice. The problem is that the people with the time and desire to influence the system are all bat-shit crazy. We could do much to fix this country with just a few minor changes.
The first would be to move election day to a Saturday and make it a national holiday which would allow much more of the working poor to vote. You'd also have to make universal early by mail voting standard across the nation to make sure you get the infirm and disabled a voice.
The second would be to alter the elector
Re:War on drugs (Score:4, Funny)
Personally I don't find Hillary's hair that amusing.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think they call him Sting? :)
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I can tell you've never dealt with the IRS (other than to file your return). This has been the general practice of a number of agencies, seize first and ask questions later. Much later, you give the "owner" of said asset a chance to ask for it back, but asking takes time and resources, and the agency who took your stuff is in charge of the process, hires the people who review your claim and makes the rules you have to follow..
The IRS can pretty much take everything you own without you having much to say about it if they think you owe them something. They can garnish your wages, seize assets and bank accounts in their efforts to collect what THEY say you owe. Other government agencies have similar abilities...
Innocent (Score:3)
You are totally innocent. Your stuff, however, is totally guilty. Try to prove otherwise!
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet America, innocence proves your guilt!
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
If no cash is found after a search, the deposit was just made or the vehicle has been altered with cash hiding compartments.
To be found with any digital banking details while driving is now fair game in that state.
Even with local plates, facial recognition of the driver and passenger can induce a "random" pull over and chat down with the "discovery" of cash or banking details.
The ability to track a face, cell phone powered on, licence plate is now so cheap any county, city, state can afford to stop anyone. If a state/federal database sees any pattern of movement or a degree separation or three of 'hops' from any suspect.
Every federal digital tracking system is now cheap enough for local law enforcement. Add in civil asset forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in many US states and just driving gets to be very interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
"In the United States, you're innocent until proven broke."
I don't know where I stole that. Possibly here on slashdot.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just remember, the same Constitution-ignoring logic WILL be used when it's time to take the guns away.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prepper ideology and gun ownership just make it easier for the government to go about it's business of trashing the constitution. First, you have already identified who you are, and they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds. They know because of metadata: where and when you use your credit card, your phone records, license plate scanners, etc. Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant.
You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux. That's where the conflict is occurring. Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Manly Men with Guns Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he is Iron Man. The end of constitutional government is a bureaucratic conflict involving business and government, not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
>You are more retarded than a sack of monkey balls.
Wait... I need to know, who measured the IQ of a sack of monkey balls ? Is this an objective measurement ? Like, is "Sacks of Monkey Balls" the official unit of measurement for retardation ? Is that SI or Imperial units ?
Re: (Score:3)
You sold that for feeling safe at airports. Happened a few years back.
Did it work?
It's been going on LONG before the TSA got their start... Perhaps to a lesser degree, but government seizure of assets w/o prior legal review has been going on for decades.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm....
I don't know what the current number is, but there is an income level below which most convicted criminals live. Below that level, lots of crime; above it, relatively little.
Now, below that income level, see what the proportions of the population are racially; what percentage of people living below that level are black, hispanic, white, etc.
Now, look at the numbers of those groups which are in jail/prison. You'll find that it almost exactly mirrors the general proportions of the population below that income level.
TL;DR—Crime is caused by poverty, not race. I know, it doesn't fit the narrative of the pampered children who frequent this site these days, but it is, nonetheless, true.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone really wanted to find out who I am for some reason, it would take them all of 30 seconds. That's not very anonymous, coward.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Except niggers. When black males - a 7% minority - are convicted for just over 50% of all murders, well, they earned any prejudice they get.
You are assuming the convictions are legitimate. If you think the US justice system has any justice in it you are terribly naive.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... white criminals never get a free pass. Just ask Brock Turner.
Re: What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Posting anon for reasons. I'm friends with a young black guy around 25 yrs old that sells crack. He recently got busted and has to have a job as part of pre sentencing conditions, hoping to get probation. He got a job washing dishes at a nursing home, pretty easy compared to washing dishes at some place like Chili's. 40 hrs week, $8/hr. He quit, because he said he was losing money from people calling wanting crack while he was at work, and because "he ain't no $8/hr nigga", his words. This isn't even just a job, it's not even enough that his freedom is on the line. Some people just want that life, and aren't going to try to keep a legit job because culture has trained them to think it's beneath them.
Land of the fee (Score:5, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty, huh?
Alright, just gotta prove that the money is clean. You need to hire a lawyer to do that.
What are you gonna pay that lawyer with after all your money just got seized?
Oh, and better do it fast - rent is due soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at least you understand all this.
4th Amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?
Civil forfeitures have been upheld in Court however, recently the Justice Department has moved to limit the use after the problem of Counties seeking to balance their budges using this tactic against out-of-townees passing thru, became alarmingly common
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.
http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html [justia.com]
There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).
http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html [justia.com]
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html [justia.com]
Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.
Re: 4th Amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
Trouble is, you have to have standing to sue. Unbelievable as it is, you can be robbed like this and still not have standing because you'requested not being charged with a crime, the property is.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure the, ahem, "people", that do this think this is perfectly reasonable.
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The neat trick they use to pull this off is they're not charging -you-, a constitutionally protected person with a crime.
They're charging your property with a crime. Your property has no constitutional rights.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, right? It's absolutely ridiculous, but that's the "innovation" that somehow makes it work.
Re: (Score:3)
People don't kill people, guns kill people.
It could be entertaining to see a murder defense referencing civil forfeiture to prove that an object can commit a crime without the wielder of the object committing the same crime.
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Read the article. Only the first of those things - seizing from prepaid cards - is even mentioned. There's nothing about bank accounts in there.
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
It didn't help that, after Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984, the police departments doing the seizing got to keep a substantial cut of the take. The legal theories involved go back considerably further; but the change in incentive structure was what created a...downright gleeful...enthusiasm for the practice among LEOs.
Some of the most visible characters involved either run or work with the "Desert Snow [desertsnow.com]" outfit which does training on how to identifiy the juicy targets; and the associated "Black Asphalt Electronic Networking System", which is essentially a cop social network for trading tips and tales of highway robbery.
It's classy stuff.
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. No. The brief answer, due to piracy the US decided the owner of the ship didn't have to be convicted. As long as the ship was used in a crime, it could be seized and sold to recoup damages. Up until prohibition, this was an obscure niche. Then they started to hit hard on cars transporting booze, buildings and land containing stills producing booze, basically if you've rent or lent your property to a third party that used it for something illegal you were fucked. In the drug war, they stretched it further seizing motels where renters sold drugs and even family houses where their kid sold drugs or seizing a rented sail boat because they smuggled one joint. Really, one joint.
Today, they've stretched it even further, they just allege that it's probably some kind of illegal money and you have to prove it's not even when you're right there and claim ownership of it as your own property. As in, your fourth amendment rights don't apply until you prove it's your property so the fourth amendment applies. Honestly, I don't know why they even give a fuck about warrants anymore. Just break down the door and later in court argue that they were charging the door, not your property. It wasn't protected until you claimed they were illegally entering, of course by then you're already tazered as a potential threat. You lose, bro.
If you can prove you're innocent... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think that {x} is connected to a crime.." (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that smartphone you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that laptop computer you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that Rolex watch you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that diamond ring you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that expensive jewelry you have is connected to a cr
Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What they are doing is completely legal. Your anger should be aimed at the enabling law-makers, not the police using the tools given to them.
Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Now they are seizing the money in the account.
No, they're not. The summary is wrong.
Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. It takes two to tango... The police departments have used this system to purchase a tank for a small midwest town. Just because they are enabled doesn't make it right, just right-wing. Police are held to a higher standard of judgement in relation to citizens and this should be no exception, excepting Oklahoma.
Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score:5, Insightful)
If police departments didn't get to keep a substantial portion of the seized goods and money, you might have a point. But since they do, and many smaller departments essentially fund themselves with this and bogus traffic tickets, they should be criminally prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest.
No, the most you can say is it's blatantly unconstitutional, and the police should recognize that and refuse to have anything to do with it.
Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists (Score:5, Informative)
Nice bullshit slam on the ACLU. The ACLU is one of the few groups that's been fighting civil forfeiture since Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984 making it legal and the supreme court approved it's constitutionality.
Don't be a fucking liar.
Re: (Score:3)
Both are at fault. The laws are there for the federal government to be able to seize assets from major criminal organizations without needing to prove a real crime but they've been extended too far. The main problem is equitable sharing which means that the federal government shares a % of the seized assets with the local/state police that seized the assets. In 2015 some equitable sharing was suspended after John Oliver shined a light on it but there are still loopholes that allow it to be done. Equitable s
Re: (Score:3)
Repeat after me: just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.
The police may be acting in a legal manner, but they also have a great deal of discretion to NOT enforce laws. That's why people get warnings instead of tickets. That's why kids that did something stupid get driven home instead of driven to juvie. That's why stuff in your possession is assumed to be yours until proven otherwise.
Wait, scratch that last one.
Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
I see no reference to the bank accounts, only the prepaid credit cards. Can anyone site something that actually talks about the attacks on bank accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Forbes has a slightly more informative write-up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/in... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to determine the balance on a prepaid debit card but the response I receive from the ERAD-Prepaid Terminal says "Invalid Amount" or "Declined". ERAD-Intel and ERAD-Recovery will only retrieve balances from open loop prepaid debit cards. Debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed using the ERAD-Intel or ERAD-Recovery system.
Forbes has a slightly more informative write-up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/in... [forbes.com]
Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a distinction without a difference for many. A lot of people use their paycheck to recharge a prepaid card. Effectively it is their bank account even if not in name.
The fact remains, you had money before and now you don't.
No not really (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no different for a few. About 8% of Americans don't have a bank account. That's not nobody, but it is accurate to say the vast majority of people have a bank account. Thus the distinction matters to most people. If you have a bank account and also use prepaid cards, then this is a distinction that could be very important. Only for the people who do not have bank accounts is there no difference.
Also it matters in terms of the law and who they are fighting with. Try to take money from a bank account without a warrant and it runs afoul of a number of banking laws, not to mention you are picking a fight with the banks.
Because of both things, you'd get a TON more pushback since it would affect a lot more people and since there are some heavy hitters (banks) involved. As it stands, it is the sort of thing that only preys on some people who are not as likely to push back, most most it will have little to no effect on.
There's a reason it is being done as it is, it IS a distinction that matters legally and practically.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "unbanked" use prepaid cards as their savings accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. I'm asking about banks, specifically, because I use a fucking bank.
Misleading (Score:3)
Article says pre-paid cards. Says nothing at all about bank accounts. Which would be a whole new level of thing.
And just how long before they return the money? (Score:2)
"If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past,"
Yeah, and just how many decades did it take before they gave it back?
And this happens in the USA? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.
I thought I was reading about some regime in the east! Not this USA. What is the difference? This saddens me.
What's old is new again (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK to skip visiting OK. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is common sense... (Score:2)
Catching the bad guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
This just proves how far law enforcement thinks that can go to tread over the rights and civil liberties of citizens in their pursuit of 'catching the bad guys'. This will not end but it has to. If a patrol officer has the authority to seize your bank accounts based on suspicion, whats to say they can't seize any and all assets based on nothing more than a "gut feeling". There is no requirement of proof on the officers part. Justice has deteriorated in the US. Crime has dropped to all-time lows, yet the headlines scream that there are rampant criminals stealing and profiting from drugs, terrorism, arms, whatever fits the headline of fear mongering. It is not right.
When will the citizenry of the US wake up and take back the power that has been slowly bled away form them over the last 50 years?
Don't get me wrong, I want the cops to get the bad guys. But do it right, not slimy, not by taking away the rights of free people.
Re:Catching the bad guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
...yet the headlines scream that there are rampant criminals stealing and profiting from drugs, terrorism, arms...
There are. We call them "cops".
Obligatory John Oliver (Score:5, Informative)
No worries (Score:2)
How will this work (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
If you can prove, you get the opportunity of fighting the police AGAIN in court. Amd hoping you eventually recover SOME of it.
This shit is little more than thievery.
You must prove you own your own possesions (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," said Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent.
Besides the absurdity of having to prove that you own your own possessions, there is the problem that many police forces simply declare it as "part of drug proceeds" and it is nearly impossible to get back.
Pre-paid cards (Score:3)
Is there any way to load a pre-paid card with a huge negative balance? Such that when somebody moves the negative quantity to their account, it actually cleans them out?
Re: (Score:3)
>implying it isn't
Re:HO.LY.FUCK (Score:4, Informative)
Is this real?
No.
The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc.
Re:HO.LY.FUCK (Score:5, Informative)
"The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc."
ERAD does not transfer money from banks, but the cops can use it to scan your ATM card referncing a bank account. That means that if you get caught by Oklahoma cops in a civil forfeiture stop, immediately close any bank accounts represented by cards in your wallet and transfer them somewhere else before the cops get a signoff from some compliant local court on tapping the bank accounts they found.
Re:HO.LY.FUCK (Score:5, Informative)
Is this real?
For some time police have had the power to steal cash from people if they 'suspect' that it might derive from some criminal activity, even if the suspect is not charged. If you are charged you are actually better off, because although the cash and other assets you have on you can be frozen as evidence, they can't be forfeited unless you are found guilty at trial.
What this article references is Oklahoma testing a new electronic device, called ERAD, which can detect money hidden on prepaid cash cards in your possession. Any such funds detected can be stolen on the same pretext as your cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Your local sheriff is probably a better shot.
As fun as the fancy gadgetry is, it's always been kind of limited in terms of holding territory where the people don't want you there. This has been true from Vietnam to Afghanistan and is still true to a certain degree even with Iraq.
Re: (Score:3)
The admiralty law misconception [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:3)