• SyJ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This was a good article, US centric, but interesting. Would have been better if it didn’t start with a picture of a happy looking dog and a seizure of $100k cash which the author can’t even explain. The law says you have to prove you didn’t get the money illegally, if I had $100k in my suitcase I think I would be able to explain how I got it.

    • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Civil asset forfeiture runs against this idea. The burden should be on the government to prove this stuff is ill-gotten gains, anything else is unamerican.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        It must be nice to have thousands of dollars and have no idea where it came from. But realistically it’s highly unlikely that you would walk around with it.

        Presumably you either were handed it in which case you know where you got it from, or you got it out of the bank in which case you must have a business or lottery winnings or inheritance you can point to.

        I cannot imagine any innocent scenario where you have vast of money (in currency form) of which you are unable to provide origin information on.

        • ASK_ME_ABOUT_LOOM@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is the same argument as “you wouldn’t object to a search if you have nothing to hide.” The fact is that anyone walking around with thousands of dollars, however “nice” you imagine that to be, is entitled to do so without any explanation due to you or the government.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it’s common for cash. Anytime you buy anything very expensive, such as a house or you want to take out a fun contract you have to submit to anti money laundering searches. This is also true of physical cash.

            • ASK_ME_ABOUT_LOOM@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sorry, but you’re conflating “using” cash with “having” cash. I can’t speak to the rest of the world, but in the United States, the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights states that you’re to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. You can have any amount of money on your person for any reason you like, so long as you don’t do something illegal with it. These cops are stealing cash under the pretense that it could have been used for something illegal, which directly conflicts with the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. The sham they perpetrate is that it’s the cash being accused, not the person. It’s bullshit and they have no intention of doing anything other than keeping the cash.

              Want to withdraw all of your cash in dollar bills so that you can lay on it like a mattress? Legal, and cops shouldn’t have any claim to it.

              Want to withdraw all of your cash in golden dollar coins and try to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck? An ill-advised plan, considering how fucked the American healthcare system works, but legal, and once again, cops should have no claim to it.

              Just having property - cash, gold, diamonds, very small unicorn figurines, whatever - is not an illegal or even inherently suspicious act.

              Without probable cause, there’s no reason a government agent should ever be able to take any property from you.

        • nodsocket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          People sometimes carry tens of thousands of dollars in cash to buy cars in-person. It’s more common than you think.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            So they can advise where the cash comes from. The problem wasn’t carrying it it was not been able to give an adequate explanation as to its origin.

            • nodsocket@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That process requires a lengthy and expensive court case and even then sometimes they don’t get the cash back.

              Also even if they give an immediate explanation to the officer they are pretty much guaranteed to take the cash anyway. The cop has a financial incentive to do so and will assume the victim is lying.

            • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              The cops don’t care, they’ll claim you’re lying and take the cash anyway.

            • abraxas@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The possession of the money is treated as probable cause. The police are not tasked with finding the ultimate truth of things, just acting on probable cause.

              So you’re on the road with $10,000 in cash. The police find out. You tell them the true reason. They write it down, then seize the money because it was suspicious to you to carry $10,000 in cash.

              Then, of course, you can go petition to get the money back. At which time, you have to prove by a preponderance of evidence (the same bar as if you were suing them for damages) to get the money back.

            • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the explanation you get to give to the judge as you now get to fight for your money back. the police officer is under no obligation to even listen to you as he steals from you.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Look its the US cops, it’s like not prodding venomous spiders, it’s basic self protection.

        • nodsocket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if you immediately explain why they will take the cash anyway. Then you spend months in court paying lawyer fees for the chance of getting it back.

        • abraxas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You do realizing that explaining why will not cause them to let you keep the $100k. They WILL seize it, regardless of your reasons. They take note of those reasons you give so they can use that against you in a court of law, however.

        • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you like your cops freshly washed, or do you like that end of shift musk, for when you’re sucking that cop dick?

    • electrorocket@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t just have to explain it, you have to hire a lawyer and take them to court to prove it, which is opposite of every other law in the country where you are innocent unless proven guilty.

      • SyJ@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not agreeing with it, but if I had $100k in my back pocket I would know how I got it. Like I said, the article should have focused on normal people with reasonable and understandable amounts, who probably wouldn’t be able to afford the court costs either.

        • abraxas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is, that’s not enough. You have to prove it in a court of law. Which, for $100,000, might cost most of that $100,000 and years of time.

          There have been some clear-cut seizure cases where the legitimacy of the money was obvious and it was either not worth the legal fees to clear up or simply insane to clear up. We are a “reasonable doubt” country for a reason, and if you can’t prove someone came about their money illegally, you shouldn’t be stealing it from them.

        • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          and the cop isnt going to give a shit to listen to you, because hes still gonna take it, and you have to expend time and money going to court to prove the money is innocent.

          and even then you might not get it back

    • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      theres been plenty of people who ahd proof how they got their money legitimately, and still had it taken.

      Why?

      because police want to buy more military gear, and your seized cash goes directly into their toy fund.