
Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him - jseliger
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8792623/civil-forfeiture-charles-clarke
======
davismwfl
It bugs me reading some of the the comments here blaming the person that did
nothing illegal by carrying cash. It doesn't matter if you (or I) feel it is
inadvisable to carry cash, it isn't illegal. Smoking pot (illegal in most
places) before flying is obviously not the brightest idea given the enhanced
level of security at an airport. So I am ok with the "smell" prompting some
extra questions (even an agreed to search) but not the seizure of personal
property when nothing can tie that property to a crime.

Also, don't forget, here in the US many people cannot qualify for a simple
checking/savings account at a bank, meaning they use check cashing services to
cash their paychecks and only have cash. There is absolutely nothing is
illegal about them only having cash. If anything IMO it is immoral that these
people are iced out of the banking environment because of past credit mistakes
etc. Immigrants and minorities are almost always the worst affected, how is
that right?

Civil asset forfeiture is horrid and needs to be done away with permanently
and nationally. If you want to take someones property prove it was involved in
a crime and directly contributed to or tied to the criminal act. If the
property is properly seized through the courts, the proceeds should first
benefit anyone directly afflicted by the criminal act, then secondarily pay
for the court and legal fees to reduce taxpayer obligations.

~~~
douche
I'm really curious, how do you not qualify for a savings account?

I've never seen a bank that wouldn't take money, especially when they can
charge account maintenance fees.

~~~
hectormalot
The main reasons are probably regulation and effort/difficulty to serve.

Assuming you are a US citizen, I highly invite you to come over to Switzerland
and try and open a (savings) account if you wish to experience it in person.
I'm currently living here, and talking to my US colleagues, I've found that it
is near impossible for them to open an account, even though they would bring
money to the banks here.

Reasoning? Issues of the US with the Swiss banking system has made these
customers more of a pain than a benefit. I'm sure a similar argument can be
made for people who (perhaps accidentally) have a bad credit score

~~~
rogerbinns
This is not a Swiss specific thing. The US is one of the few countries that
taxes citizens (and permanent residents) while the they don't live in the US.
Consequently citizens have to self report their foreign income and foreign
taxes. There are various tax treaties, but the US person will essentially have
to pay the difference between the foreign taxes and the US taxes on that money
(that at no point went anywhere near the US, nor any services it provides).

But of course that wasn't enough. The FATCA law requires foreign institutions
to also report back to the US.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act)

> The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is a United States federal
> law requiring United States persons (including those living outside the
> U.S.) to have yearly reported themselves and their non-U.S.financial
> accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), and requires
> all non-US (Foreign) Financial Institutions (FFI's) to search their records
> for suspected US persons for reporting their assets and identities to the US
> Treasury.

Note the last part. The burden imposed by FATCA on those institutions is so
high, that they are refusing to have any US related people as customers. Heck
the FATCA law is so wide reaching and onerous that a friend in Sri Lanka was
bitching about having to implement it at their company, even though they don't
employ a single US related person.

The net result is US citizens living abroad are giving up citizenship rather
than deal with all this crap. It is noticeable how under represented Americans
expats are, and there will be increasingly fewer. (As a counter-example, you
will find Brits everywhere.) This will harm the country and its integration
into the rest of the world (economically, politically etc).

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24135021](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24135021)

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/fatca-
hurts...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/fatca-hurts-law-
abiding-americans-living-abroad)

[http://fatca.hsbc.com/](http://fatca.hsbc.com/)

~~~
sjackso
To make the situation even weirder, "giving up citizenship" to avoid these
complications is difficult and expensive for US expats.

Renunciation of US citizenship was free until July 2010, the same year that
FACTA went into effect. At that time US embassies started charging a $450 fee
to renounce citizenship. In September 2014, this fee was raised to $2,350.

So an American family of four, living abroad, who wants to renounce their US
citizenship needs to come up with $9400 to do so.

~~~
thephyber
Not to mention potentially MUCH higher fees to the IRS for becoming an expat:

[https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-
Taxpayers/Expa...](https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-
Taxpayers/Expatriation-Tax)

------
hmottestad
Now I'm not sure if Norway has similar laws, but I haven't heard of any.

However, watching John Oliver talk about how ridiculous the civil forfeiture
laws are in the US just makes me want to laugh so much.

I know of all the great things happening in the US, and I'm not calling you a
bad country. But it's so hard not to categorise you together with North Korea,
China and the United Arab Emirates with how trigger happy your police are, how
easy it is for them to steal from the population. How terribly you treat your
sick and poor, and how fascinated you seem to be with groping people at the
airport.

~~~
joshuaheard
Don't get your news from a comedian.

Edit: Sorry, still on my first cup of coffee. Here it goes: the purpose of
news is to objectively inform you of facts. The purpose of these comedy shows
is to make you laugh, often by distorting or exaggerating the facts. By
getting your news from comedy shows, you are receiving a distorted view of
reality, which you seem to admit in your post. However, I see this as a
greater problem with some youth.

~~~
fmihaila
"Last Week Tonight" is a commentary news show that also happens to be funny.
Its content is entirely factual and has way more in common with "60 Minutes"
than with "Saturday Night Live". I'd argue that the purpose of the show is in
fact to make you cry. Sometimes laughing makes that easier.

~~~
joshuaheard
"Last Week Tonight" is satire. It says so on its web site. Satire involves the
use of humor to exaggerate or ridicule. It is not serious news and if that is
your source of news, you are foolish.

------
eldavido
Civil asset forfeiture is horrible and we should get rid of it.

On a different note, my takeaway from this story: pick your battles.

Sure, you _can_ go into an airport with $11k in cash. Maybe you're a Sikh and
you want to carry a kirpan [0] into the airport, or you're a high school kid
working on a science project and you have a bunch of C-cell batteries taped
together with wires hanging out the ends of them (experience talking).

You're probably increasing your odds of getting stopped. Sometimes it's worth
it, maybe for strong religious beliefs, or you feel strongly about the
exercise of your democratic rights. But fighting the collective weight of
"normal", shared perception, culture, etc. is costly. You'll be delayed,
people will ask lots of annoying questions, in general you'll expend a lot of
energy on stuff that is in some sense, entirely avoidable.

I felt this way recently when trying to get a loan for a house from Wells
Fargo. Quit my W2 a few months ago for a large contract. I couldn't convince
the bank my income was solid even though the payment was about 1/8th of my
taxable income and I had almost the entire mortgage balance in semi-liquid
retirement accounts. Sometimes the message the world sends is, "conform".

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan)

~~~
imaginenore
Civil asset forfeiture is fine if you're convicted, and the law says it's ok
for a given crime. The current situation is ridiculous, and I'm surprised
nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a
person was not charged and/or not found guilty).

~~~
nickff
If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset
forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the
only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being
convicted.

The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit
courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The
Supreme Court also sometimes takes cases which they are certain will have
circuit splits, ones of particular importance (Bush v. Gore), and those which
are causing a body of law to be developed which the SC justices believe to be
incorrect. Because of these facts, you cannot force a case on to the Supreme
Court docket; they are probably waiting for the right case to take.

~~~
stretchwithme
Can't you just get it from the estate?

Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property
rights of individuals without due process.

~~~
nickff
Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following
the will?

It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it
would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.

~~~
stretchwithme
I meant upon conviction they can get what the person would have been fined.
Can't execution of the will wait until all cases are finished?

------
LancerSykera
Minnesota recently fixed this so that a criminal conviction is necessary
before forfeiture, and when I texted my state representative about it, he said
my state senator already has a bill for it in committee in Pennsylvania.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/05/07/m...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/05/07/minnesota-
forfeiture-reform/)

~~~
joeax
New Mexico too. And Ohio soon. Luckily the dominos are falling.

[https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/09/this-map-details-
whether-...](https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/09/this-map-details-whether-
asset-forfeitur)

------
Mithaldu
I still don't understand why this kind of thing has not yet led to violence.

Edit:

> Originally, it was designed for situations in which the court would not have
> jurisdiction over the person, so it's an action on the property itself.

Oh, interesting. So it is a bug in the law itself that nobody has any interest
in fixing; but people who've already been robbed at gunpoint.

~~~
csense
Because the government and businesses have slowly but surely been eroding the
role of cash in our lives.

Most people use checks or credit cards for big purchases. Most people are paid
by check, and the exceptions are usually near minimum wage.

Nobody does big transactions in cash anymore -- even if you want to pay tens
or hundreds of thousands in cash for a car, a house, or college tuition, if
you show up with a briefcase full of cash, then your counterparty will tell
you to put it in a bank and come back with a check because they're not set up
to handle cash on their end.

Government policies are designed to encourage inflation, yet the government
stopped printing $500 and larger bills in 1945 and has never continued them.

Most of the people who were old enough to remember the Great Depression and
hoarded cash throughout their lives because of their experiences are old
enough to be dead or in an old folks' home, and their hoards of cash have
already been deposited in the banking system by their families. Living through
the Depression hasn't been a "mainstream" experience for many decades, and the
actions of those who did have been dismissed as "silly, irrational things that
old people do."

Basically it's become so abnormal to have large amounts of cash that a lot of
people _agree_ with the government -- "if you're using a lot of cash, that's
so abnormal, you _must_ be involved in something illegal." It's so abnormal it
activates our tribal instincts which cause us to de-humanize -- "That's not
something that I would do, or anyone I know would do" \-- it's much easier to
accept the demonization of people who use cash.

Of course, this is just how the government and big business wants things to
work -- all those bank deposits and credit cards are much easier to track.
Think about all the junk mail you get based on your credit rating -- the
marketing departments in those companies love the amount of information you're
giving away about your finances.

~~~
1971genocide
I agree with your conclusion - but your premise of conspiracy is wrong.

Using virtual Money is obviously much better than paper money. The difference
is should it be centralized or de-centralized and anonymous ?

The paradoxical economic problem with decentralized money is that the govt has
no control over it. Which means during bad time its going to be very difficult
for the govt to enact changes. We learnt it the hard way During the great
depression when money was pegged to gold and the govt was unable to use
inflation to restart the economy.

Its a deep economical problem for which there is no known theoretical
solution. Is it possible to have a decentralized monetary system that can also
be controlled by a representive govt ?

~~~
DamnYuppie
Unfortunately it is much easier for governments to confiscate it when it is
digital and centralized.

~~~
kaybe
And much easier to collect data on people's money-spending habits.

------
ipsin
It this began with a ticket agent (who generally gets a cut) and a "drug-
sniffing" dog.

Police dogs are magical beasts -- you just point the dog at the thing you want
searched and wait for it to "signal" that it's found something.

I really wish that the Supreme Court had had the chance to review the accuracy
of drug dogs in their case this year (Rodriguez v. US).

How many times can a dog signal a false positive before you recognize that the
drug dog is trying to please its handler? The police have no incentive to
count.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
It wasn't a false positive, he admits himself that he smoked weed on the way
to the airport. That's really not the point of the article however.

~~~
jMyles
That's still a false positive. Dogs are ostensibly trained to distinguish
between a lingering odor (or "residue") and actual material. So the dog, we're
told, indicated because of "residue," falsely giving a positive indication for
material.

~~~
pandaman
>Dogs are ostensibly trained to distinguish between a lingering odor (or
"residue") and actual material.

Have you got any citation for this? I am wondering how is it even possible.

------
epicureanideal
I wrote my rep because of this. If anyone wants to use pieces of this to save
time writing their own rep, feel free:

[http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

I'll keep this email brief because either you'll know about the issue already,
or you'll want to do your own research (or ask your staff to do so). Most
people won't take the time to email you, but this is probably the #1 most
important issue for law abiding citizens at this time.

Civil forfeiture, which permits cash or property of US citizens to be seized
by police without being convicted of a crime, is completely opposed to all the
principles of democratic government. If someone is convicted of a crime and
the cash or property relates to the crime, sure, take it. But I am reading
more and more stories in the news about merely unlucky fellow citizens having
their cash stolen from them by the police (I use the word stolen because the
seizure is unjust in this case) merely because "carrying a lot of cash is
suspicious".

You might be interested to read the Peelian Principles of policing a democracy
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles))
which were created for the Metropolitan Police Force in London in 1829. The
same principles would be effective today for maintaining public support for
the police.

When the people we as citizens entrust to keep order create the impression
that they are not trustworthy and are a potential danger to us, this is a
serious problem. When citizens see a police car or see a police officer walk
by, they should feel safe, not fearful. That is less and less the case.

Thank you.

------
1024core
These stories make me very upset. How can we, as a society, let this go on?

I wrote my Congresswoman and Senators, asking them about this case. I _urge_
you all to do the same.

~~~
Frondo
Write your state representatives. Work to get the law changed in your state.
Refer to the laws passed in other states in your letters, etc. It'll be much,
much easier than trying to get things done at the federal level.

------
chrisbennet
Attorney General Eric Holder changed this somewhat in January. It's an
improvement but not as much as some people thought according to this Forbes
article.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/01/22/despite-h...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/01/22/despite-
holders-forfeiture-reform-cops-still-have-a-license-to-steal/)

------
gizi
It is a double problem. A rule that allows the police to seize your cash for
the most flimsy of reasons only works if people are not aware of the fact that
this could happen. Therefore, the next step is to outlaw discussions of the
type that we are having now. Next, hosting a site that allows this kind of
discussions must also be banned. Merely describing what exactly is banned,
discloses the wrong kind of information, and must therefore also be banned. It
is not enough to impose obnoxious rules. It will also be needed to control all
information about them. The solution is to make rules a secret. That is how
you get things like the FISA courts, the secret courts granting the NSA the
right to do whatever they like, while anybody involved becomes subject to a
gag order. Shut up, or else!

------
powera
The TLDR is "Don't carry thousands of dollars of physical cash unless you want
to risk the police [or some criminal] stealing it".

Which is an awful thing to say about the police, but is probably reasonable
advice to give.

~~~
travisp
It's worth noting that civil forfeiture doesn't just apply to cash. It can be
(and has been) used against bank accounts or pretty much any property you can
own. For example, here's a case where the government tried to seize $115,000
from a couple's bank accounts (without charging them with a crime):
[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/08/after-seizing-couples-
ba...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/08/after-seizing-couples-bank-
accounts-prosecutors-abandon-forfeiture-case/)

~~~
x0ra
...but the police is less likely to go through all your immaterial belongings
for just a smell of weed.

------
pearjuice
The main reason why the War on Drugs is so popular in police departments.

~~~
joeax
I read somewhere there are hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits sitting
in police labs nationwide. Catching rapists is not profitable.

~~~
legutierr
I wonder what would happen if the proceeds of these seizures had to be used
for that testing.

------
seansmccullough
I think the two takeaways here are:

1\. Civil forfeiture laws need to go away. They are completely unfair, and a
major conflict of interest for the police.

2\. Don't carry $11k to the airport, just to avoid this issue.

------
ScottBurson
If you agree that the civil asset forfeiture laws need to be reformed, please
consider donating to [http://endforfeiture.com/](http://endforfeiture.com/) .
I just did.

------
superuser2
For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him _in cash_.
We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like
that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No
one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over
vastly safer and free alternatives.

That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to
get mad about people experiencing bad outcomes when they take stupid risks.

There are many other examples that make a better case against civil asset
forfeiture.

~~~
MichaelGG
Having cops steal money should not be a risk anyone is taking, let alone a
stupid one. If he got mugged, that'd be another thing.

Also, free alternatives? Elaborate. And certainly they aren't free from
surveillance.

We _should_ encourage and treat the carrying of $$$$$ in cash as a _normal_
thing to do.

~~~
superuser2
Checking accounts. Bitcoin (not free, but close).

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger,
or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

>And certainly they aren't free from surveillance.

If you want a financial system free from surveillance then you need to get the
public on board with ending taxation (and consequently all public services).
Good luck.

And, as we saw, moving cash on an airplane is the _most_ heavily surveilled
and scrutinized way to do it.

~~~
LeUsername
> Bitcoin (not free, but close).

Suggesting Bitcoin in its current state of evolution as a free and "vastly
safer" alternative to carrying cash is CRAZY. Whereas having the cash on you
carries the risk of being mugged (I understood the story that he had the cash
directly with him when the police arrived, it wasn't in the checked luggage,
therefore the airline risks you mention do not apply), using Bitcoin carries
much higher risks of:

\- exchange going bust,

\- exchange being hacked,

\- exchange rate going down violently,

\- Bitcoin wallet being stolen from his computer via malware,

\- exchange's banking accounts being seized.

To a layperson unskilled with Bitcoin, walking with 11,000 USD in pockets
through airport, using taxi/Uber and arriving in front of your door in a non-
ghetto neighbourhood compares to Bitcoin as putting that cash into transparent
bag, hanging it on your neck and walking through deserted city at night
yelling "look, I have cash".

And even when you are skilled or take (a lot of) your time to read about
everything starting with comparing various exchanges, securing your computer,
using paper wallets, etc., you are dependant on very volatile exchange rate.

I generally support Bitcoin for various purposes (e.g. e-commerce) based on
various reasons. But no, it certainly is not "vastly safer" for storing or
even merely transferring your life savings, especially for a non-skilled
person.

~~~
LeUsername
To elaborate more - each and every method of moving money has its own inherent
risks. For example, when my father bought a car several times decades apart,
he would take the cash both from home and bank, carry it in a jacket in an
envelope to a dealer, put it on the table, immediately receive keys and papers
for registration and drive away.

Fast forward in time and somebody had a very "clever" idea to outlaw paying
more than 5,000 EUR in cash. Now, I have to wire transfer the funds in
advance, wait for the transfer to clear and then come in to get the car. I
certainly don't risk being mugged on my way to the dealer (in broad daylight,
without advertising everyone, e.g. on social networks, that today I am buying
a car and waving the wad of cash in a selfie). But if the limited liability
company with 6,000 EUR liability deposit bankrupts, I will have neither the
money (wire transfer have nothing like cashback on credit cards) nor the car
until a lengthy legal process hoping that they have enough funds and property
to pay out all creditors... You don't risk mugging but have to do way larger
due diligence, check finance health of the company, ask around for customer
feedback on the company, etc.

------
hackatroll
I don't know why someone would take the chance caring that much money on them.
Couldn’t he have gotten a check and cashed it once he got home or a bank
account?

~~~
rdancer
He won't make the same mistake again, that's for sure.

------
InfiniteEntropy
Welcome to America.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

------
cmurf
Sometimes, we are just evil vindictive assholes for no good goddamn reason.
And it's shit.

------
blazespin
Anonymous cash, like bitcoins, is a dangerous thing and facilitates illegal
activities.

The government should subsidize accounts and account fees for poor people.

~~~
teddyh
…says “blazespin”, making an anonymous comment.

------
yason
While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and
completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply
questionable——as opposed to _taking the property temporarily unless_ proven
guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and
b) smoking weed while doing that.

All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the
baggage/wallet/jacket with the money in it or being robbed. But because of b)
and in a state where I believe cannabis is illegal, the mere unluckiness can
be imagined to be amplified tenfold and one of the results is a catastrophe
such as his.

~~~
sobkas
>the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b)
smoking weed while doing that.

So stupidity is now a crime? Because he wasn't charged with for a or b.

>losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with the money in it or being robbed

Police took his money because they believed they can get away with it(pothead
like him would be to afraid to do anything about it), so just because it is
legal, it doesn't suddenly make it not a robbery.

~~~
yason
I believe I did not say stupidity was a crime.

I suggested that it's stupid to carry large amounts of cash while smoking
weed, because that can easily get you into a bigger trouble combined than
merely carrying lots of cash or only smoking weed.

Factor in the unfair and unpredictable behaviour from the police and while
you've done nothing wrong, you have a lot of explaining to do to the officers
who really aren't that interested in hearing your explanation in the first
place.

------
hoffspot
I'm not saying the police are right, the whole seizure thing is ridiculous,
but this story is so shady. You have 11 grand in cash and want to move it from
A to B. The obvious and safe way is to deposit it in a bank and get a
cashier's check or do an ACH transfer. Who in their right mind would carry it
with them or even worse, put it in a checked bag that airlines notoriously
lose? The point of the story is valid, but the example is ridiculous. Sounds
like someone wanted an untraceable 11 grand. Shady.

~~~
readme
You know what man, you're absolutely right. But most people here are going to
disagree with you, downvote you, and your brand new account is only going to
be visible when I click "showdead" because apparently HN can't handle an
opinion without hitting the down button.

I would bet you so much, not a soul on HN would dream of carrying 11k in cash
through an airport.

It's ok though, we should make sure people have the right to do that, since
300 years ago before we even had ACH transfers or airplanes the constitution
guaranteed us protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

There are cases where I sympathize a lot with the victims of civil asset
forfeiture, but this is not one of them.

~~~
glenra
> _not a soul on HN would dream of carrying 11k in cash through an airport._

I've carried over $11k through an airport dozens of times and occasionally
carried $30k or more.

(I used to be involved with a professional blackjack team. :-) )

~~~
dalke
Building on that, here's an article from 1997 about the collision of
professional gambling and civil forfeiture -
[http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/launder.htm](http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/launder.htm)
:

> I had approximately $30K on me, but luckily I was wearing it.

> The airline x-ray detected approximately 100,000 dollars in cash and casino
> chips.

and a 2014 article titled "Poker Players Get Robbed Under Guise of Civil Asset
Forfeiture" \- [http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/17922-lawyer-for-
poker-...](http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/17922-lawyer-for-poker-
players-who-had-100k-stolen-by-iowa-police-officers-talks-about-case) :

> The fancy legal term may be ‘civil asset forfeiture,’ but for a couple of
> poker players who saw Iowa police take $100,000 of their money it is just
> straight up robbery.

> In April of last year, poker players William “Bart” Davis and John
> Newmer­zhycky were driving west through Iowa with out-of-state plates after
> a poker road trip. In their car was a lot of cash,

