
DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash - tantalor
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-record-airport-seizures/88474282/
======
dmayle
There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. What
they are doing is called out as unconstitutional in no less than _three_ (!!!)
different amendments. At this point in time, the supreme court should be
buckling under the weight of requests to review this practice, and have it
struck down as un-American.

"The right of the people to be _secure in their persons_ , houses, papers, and
effects _against unreasonable searches and seizures_ , shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized" \- Fourth Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, _nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation._ " \-- Fifth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized" \- Fourteenth Ammendment

~~~
rosser
> _There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review._

And yet, civil asset forfeiture has been sanctioned by SCotUS.

If we're ever going to change this kind of crap, indignation and, "But, but,
but ... nuh-uh!" are _not_ the places to start.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
The language of the constitution is pretty clear. So what this says to me is
that the Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution.

While these thefts are disturbing, this lack of accountability from the
Supreme Court will ultimately lead to much worse crimes.

~~~
DannyBee
The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the
constitution means.

So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't
make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing"
the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to
use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things.
They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it
happen themselves).

You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's
wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress
passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment
to do it. This has happened numerous times before.

They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility
for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear
certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or
amendments.

They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and
accountability you get in our system of government :)

~~~
sathackr
> Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an
> amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before.

But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how
you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments
already state.

Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in
it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it
would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.

------
mattnewton
The most ridiculous part of these stories to me is that the ending was
repeatedly "you got us, we can't prove this money is from illegal sources, but
we're only returning part of it." It's like they are trying to return the
minimum amount to make it no longer worth the victim's effort. Definitely
doesn't inspire confidence that this done in good faith.

If this were an article USA today was writing about Mexico it probably would
have just gone out and called it corruption. I am certainly convinced from
these cases it is a massive abuse.

~~~
Bartweiss
> The Justice Department agreed in May to return half the money, without
> explanation.

That's about the ugliest thing in the entire story. It makes total sense if
you're trying to defuse legal proceedings by making them not worth the price,
and no sense at all if you're trying to freeze money from drug traffickers.

------
zeveb
> Federal drug agents regularly mine Americans’ travel information to profile
> people who might be ferrying money for narcotics traffickers — though they
> almost never use what they learn to make arrests or build criminal cases.

> Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize
> a small fortune in cash.

So, they're basically the Sheriff of Nottingham, or the old Central European
robber barons.

~~~
gtirloni
> DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more
> than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade
> after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking

So was it drug money or not?

~~~
MichaelGG
It's easy for them to conclude, with no due process. They just say so, take
the money, and leave you having to file suit and fight the government to get
your own money back.

Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime
is.

The sicker part is that it's just admitting that their justice system is so
broken that they wouldn't be able to get convictions against these "criminals"
otherwise.

~~~
emodendroket
> Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime
> is.

I'm not sure why it's a travesty that it's illegal to conceal the source of
illegally-earned money.

~~~
didgeoridoo
Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you
think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a
travesty.

~~~
dragonwriter
Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I
said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply
problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.

~~~
snark42
> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I
> said so";

Not at all...

It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route
with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that
it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a
job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across
the country.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug
> route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money."

Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it _is_
drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject
to forfeiture. ( _If_ they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money
_anyway_ by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of
proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money
subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.)

> The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent

No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford
decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt
to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your
life savings.

(This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right
to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against
an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal
case.)

------
Roboprog
So, anybody discussing decriminalizing drugs and proposing they are a medical
issue instead can count on the fact that he/she is threatening the livelihood
of _both_ the dealers and the "enforcement" agency???

(and be appropriately wary)

~~~
api
Throw in police unions, the private prison industry, the surveillance
industry, criminal lawyers, ...

~~~
rbanffy
And the criminals. It's much less profitable if you pay taxes and can't kill
your competition.

~~~
frandroid
Parent already mentioned "the dealers".

------
SixSigma
> “We won’t release that information without a subpoena,” American Airlines
> spokesman Ross Feinstein said.

Just because Ross said something, doesn't make it true.

> And a police dog smelled drugs on the cash

There is so much wrong with that assertion

1) Dogs are trained to find money

2) Most cash is cocaine contaminated [1]

3) A dog indicating is not proof of anything [2] usually nothing more than
what the handler wants to happen

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency)

[2] [https://nevergetbusted.com/2014/07/20/university-study-
trick...](https://nevergetbusted.com/2014/07/20/university-study-tricked-
certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/)

------
diego_moita
From a Latin American perspective, the US deals with corruption in a very
interesting way.

* Here in Latin America the police extorts corruption and you know that it is illegal but good luck complaining. In the US they just legalize the extortion.

* Here in Latin America it is illegal to bribe a politician but everyone does it. In the US they just legalize lobbying and corporations financing campaigns.

So, to avoid corruption, the US just makes it legal?

~~~
rosser
Well, by definition, corruption is illegal. So if you make the behavior legal,
in specific, defined circumstances, then it's not corruption any more. Magic!

------
dmix
It seems the NSA analysts can wake up in the morning and reassure themselves
"hey, at least we're not DEA agents".

------
zanethomas
Note that the DEA is probably, in some cases, using information obtained by
the NSA and shared with the DEA. See also: parallel construction,
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140203/11143926078/paral...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140203/11143926078/parallel-
construction-revealed-how-dea-is-trained-to-launder-classified-surveillance-
info.shtml)

The war on drugs has wreaked havoc on our country by providing huge incentives
for the criminally-minded to act as they do. And yes, I'm referring to all of
the criminals involved.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
The brilliant thing (For them) about this is they don't need the hassle of
parallel construction if they're not building a case-- they can just use the
NSA information to steal the money, and then never file charges, and thus
never have to justify to a court how they acquired the knowledge that the
money would be there.

The NSA gets a cut, I'm sure.

~~~
rhizome
The NSA doesn't need the paper-trail of a cut, and at any rate the cut would
be small potatoes to them.

------
pfarnsworth
Why hasn't this been successfully fought by the ACLU? What issues are keeping
this legal for so long?

------
6stringmerc
It is my sincere hope that in my lifetime a Whistle Blower cripples the DEA
and exposes a profiteering, disturbing agenda that so many seem to sense is at
the belligerent, Constitution-ignoring soul of the organization.

------
homulilly
Law enforcement is the biggest and most dangerous gang in America.

------
hx87
At its core, the problem is that the DEA has a monetary incentive to seize
cash, since it can keep the cash for its own use. What if that were no longer
possible, and all money confiscated by government agencies are incinerated
under external supervision, if cash, or sent to the monetary equivalent of
/dev/null (buying 0% Treasury perpetuities, perhaps) if electronic.

------
pmarreck
The easy solution to this (from the perspective of the criminal) is to just
move the money via a cryptocurrency (traded for cash privately) and it seems
completely idiotic to me that this hasn't occurred yet, there is basically
zero risk of LE compromise.

I'm also rather surprised that I'm the first person to even mention it here,
since this is basically a solved problem.

~~~
arcticfox
Is it that easy to trade $50,000 of a cryptocurrency for regular currency
without leaving an ugly papertrail? I guess theoretically you can have a clean
accomplice that does it for you on the regulated exchanges and hands you the
cash, but I'm not sure how well that works for evading LE.

~~~
pmarreck
Well, you can do that, or you can try to establish a complete shadow economy
on the blockchain, where both buyers and sellers use the crypto as a currency,
and it only gets exchanged for cold hard (more troublesome) cash at the
"leaves" which are ostensibly much smaller and more invisible amounts

------
20yrs_no_equity
The tighter their grip, the more value will slip thru their fingers into
bitcoin.

------
cloudjacker
I count on this so I can buy cheap Outside Lands tickets from cash poor drug
dealers that "had something come up"

