
How Police Officers Seize Cash from Innocent Americans - ryan_j_naughton
http://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/
======
throwaway15236
It happened to me. I was flying out of San Francisco once on an international
flight. And at SFO some of the international terminals go through these long
corridors to connect to that moveable tunnel that connects to a plane. I was
fixing some bug on my laptop and decided to wait till the last minute to board
(though I was sitting right infront of the check-in desk). When I went past
the check-in desk and into the corridor, two police officers approached me and
asked me if they could ask a few questions. It felt suspicious right away why
they were stopping me as there were hardly any people around - there was no
one behind me, and everyone had already gone through the corridor. They took
me aside into a small room and asked me where I was travelling to and for what
purpose. But then they repeated a number of times that it's illegal to carry
more than $10,000 in cash and if I was carrying over that amount and that if I
was it would have to be confiscated. I told them I wasn't and I think I only
had less than $500 in my wallet. They went through my wallet, went through my
bag pack, even flipped through my Clojure book and then they let me go. But I
kept having that feeling that something didn't feel right. Later I wished I
had asked for the officers names or if that would have gotten me into trouble
with them.

~~~
ourmandave
It's not illegal to carry cash, no matter how much.

~~~
rev_bird
I believe there are import/export restrictions on international flights.

~~~
bostonpete
Not according to snopes:

[http://www.snopes.com/business/money/10000.asp](http://www.snopes.com/business/money/10000.asp)

~~~
thedufer
Did you read that link? It says you must report entering/leaving the country
with more than $10k. Sounds like that's what's being described.

------
balls187
John Oliver had a great piece on this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

In the US, where the constitution expressly prohibits it: that your property
is seized w/o due process is complete and utter garbage.

By no means am I a right-wing/vigilante militia supporter, but this type of
behavior from the police makes me support having a heavily armed citizenry.

~~~
timonovici
How would heavily armed citizenry help solve the problem? Are you going to put
a hole in the head of the officer who takes your cash out of your car? Won't
that lead to anarchy or civil war, eventually? Maybe...consider changing the
law, eh?

~~~
thescriptkiddie
The police are breaking the law.

~~~
finid
> The police are breaking the law.

No, they're not breaking the law. They're just taking advantage of laws your
elected officials wrote.

So if you want to stop the cops from stealing from you, get your elected
official to change the law, or threaten to _vote_ him/her out of office.

That's how it's supposed to be, but citizens keep voting the same politicians
into office that vote against their interests.

~~~
Nutmog
Absolutely. I live in an authoritarian country and people would love to be
able to vote politicians out. Americans really can but they just complain then
vote for the same two parties every time.

Clinton caused some of these tough on crime and drugs laws. So if you voted
for his party (Obama), then you voted for this.

~~~
krapp
Most Americans approve of the war on drugs, three strikes laws and zero-
tolerance policies. Even the militarization of police after 9/11 was welcomed
by a populace that was outraged such a thing could happen on US soil. If the
end result has become authoritarianism, we must recognize that it exists in
the US, in no small degree, because we the wanted it, not because it was
forced upon us against our will.

~~~
Decade
If there’s one useful outcome of the research of Pavlov and Freud and their
peers, it’s the scientific discovery that humans are distressingly easy to
manipulate into wanting things they did not want before. Ten years ago, the
modern smartphone did not exist, and now I bet you don’t want to live without
one.

In this case, we have the big media, big industry, and big government in a
huge orgy of bribery and self-interest, that all benefit from people accepting
authoritarianism. There’s a relief valve, a small minority of people getting
their political analysis from Comedy Central or their security analysis from
Bruce Schneier, but the vast majority get their talking points from people who
are funded to act like there is still a debate about climate change.

It’s not technically against our will, but our will has been manipulated.

~~~
finid
> Ten years ago, the modern smartphone did not exist, and now I bet you don’t
> want to live without one.

The smartphone example does not fit.

Very few needed to be manipulated into buying one. You've got to have a phone,
whether it's a smartphone, a feature phone, or even a land line phone. Unless
extraneous circumstances dictate otherwise, a phone is a necessity.

------
iamleppert
Between the police shooting innocent people, tasering and bearing up our kids,
does anyone even feel safe around them anymore?

Whenever I see police, I have the same fight or flight response as if I'd see
someone in a dark alley. The police have become dangerous, and none of my
friends trust them. They would be the last people I'd call if there was
something happening. Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob
you.

Who does that sound like?

~~~
rdtsc
> Too much of a risk they would beat you, kill you, or rob you.

Yap pretty much.

I came from a country where cops would torture people to get confessions out
of them. Basically chances were, if they caught you, and they were bored /
were bribed by someone, or just had a bad day, they could make you "confess"
to crimes easily.

One time my friend and I caught a pickpocketer. Pickpocketer's associate
swiped my friend's wallet. There was a group of them, all scattered except
one. We caught him and eventaully ended up with him at a police station. It
was a quiet evening there. One cop even had his 1st or 2nd grader son there
playing around in the hallway. So being bored, the cops decided to get this
pickpocketer to tell them where his buddies are hanging out. They needed the
wallet to officially to charge him so they could arrest him. So to get him to
talk, they asked us to leave the room. Then proceeded to torture him. Holy
crap! I can still hear his pleas for help. What started with us being happy we
caught him and him getting some justice, turned into us feeling pretty sorry
for him... at some point we signed some papers and just left.

Long story short, there is a good reason there to be afraid of cops. They are
just like an organized criminal gang are are sanctioned to operate by the law.
You never know what they'll do, they have guns, friends with guns, and could
beat or torture you to death on a whim.

Now it is night and day to what is in this country, and I felt pretty safe in
general around cops here. But in later years, the stories I hear, camera
recordings of cops shooting people, the whole forfeture thing, I see things
slowly start to nudge into a bad direction. I start feeling a little bit more
like I felt there, in the old country.

Also, I can't decide if cops have started to do this more, or that they've
always done but there weren't as many cameras around to record it, and only
the poor people got to experience that side of the "law".

~~~
lkbm
> Also, I can't decide if cops have started to do this more, or that they've
> always done but there weren't as many cameras around to record it, and only
> the poor people got to experience that side of the "law".

I don't know either, but Chicago had a police torture scandal that occurred in
the 70s and 80s:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge)

I very much doubt that police treatment of black people is WORSE than before.
Maybe we were briefly better in the 80s and 90s, but I don't see any reason to
believe so.

~~~
krapp
I think it's more that police treatment of black people is more visible to
mainstream American consciousness due to the ever increasing coverage of it on
the news - which is itself mostly chasing after the ratings brought in by the
Michael Brown shooting case.

------
l33tbro
As a non-American, it's pretty scary for the rest of us to see how your
society can tolerate these Eritrean standover tactics, while still retaining
this "freedom loving" doublespeak in the national cinema you project into the
world.

~~~
adventured
That can be maintained because it's still extraordinarily isolated and small
in occasion. America remains among the freest nations on earth in nearly every
measure - even if it's not the best at every measure. Your premise though is
very flawed in my opinion, I don't know very many people that are unaware of
the erosion of liberty that has occurred - both sides of the voting aisle are
extremely aware of it, it's constantly discussed at a national level (eg the
Washington Post has run countless articles on it), and every side of the US
politically have their opinions on its nature and what should be done about
it.

You're acting like this is affecting every American and is very common. It's
not. Eritrea? That's laughable, you're intentionally dramatizing to try to
insult the US. It is in fact a very, very small problem, that is very serious
and needs to be put down before it gets any larger. Steps have already begun
to put an end to it. Why pretend it's not an understood problem that almost
everyone agrees needs to be dealt with? The only reason to pretend that, is to
levy a cheap shot at the US.

~~~
tete
Sorry, but even when I can to a degree see your point it sounds like you feel
overly insulted by someone stating basic facts.

The US has been pretty bad off when it comes to civil liberties compared to
many other other countries for quite a while now.

Next to civil forfeiture the US unlike most other countries still has death
penalty, still has a rather big amount of the population rotting in one of the
worst prison systems of the western world, still doesn't legalize things like
most drugs or prostitution, still doesn't do anything against the decline of
education, making it only possible for wealthy to get one, has even when
compared with development countries a pretty bad health care system, many
archaic laws, has things like the DMCA killing off freedom of speech, has that
NSA scandal going on that made KGB and Stasi look like nothing, presidents
that are dynasties of families, barely any protection against discrimination
of minorities, etc.

I really don't want to talk bad about the US, but your statement of "America
remains among the freest nations on earth in nearly every measure" really
doesn't seem anywhere close to true. What are you basing that statement on? Or
are you purely talking about so called "economical freedoms"?

Oh and not saying country X is better. I just think that statement you made is
wrong.

~~~
cglace
> I really don't want to talk bad about the US,

> has that NSA scandal going on that made KGB and Stasi look like nothing

Yeah, I'm going to say you only want to talk bad about the US.

~~~
jessaustin
Patriotism: you're doing it wrong. Real patriots don't strain to find reasons
for taking offense. Rather, we're pissed off that "offensive" statements
happen to be objectively true. Only USA people can change USA. If you don't
want to change it, then get comfortable with seeing many more rational
assessments of our problems.

~~~
cglace
I have no problem calling out America for its faults. I just misinterpreted
the comment and thought they were saying America was worse than Nazi Germany.
I didn't realize they were talking just about data collection.

------
CptJamesCook
This happened to a coworker of mine, when he was flying from the midwest back
to San Francisco. He had $15,000 cash on him and it was noticed at security.
As he was boarding the plane, government officials grabbed him and took the
money.

However, it did happen to be money he had made selling drugs several years
prior. They had identified him as a convicted felon with a drug related
offense and connected the money to it.

~~~
dibujante
Still problematic. If you removed all due process, a hypothetical police
officer could grab someone they're reasonably certain is a criminal and throw
them in prison. They could also grab someone they are reasonably certain cut
them off on the freeway and throw them in prison. Just because suspending due
process makes it easier to apprehend criminals isn't the point. Due process
wasn't included in the Constitution because of naiveté.

~~~
criddell
A person is presumed innocent. The money is guilty until proven innocent.

~~~
dibujante
If I stole your TV, would I be burglarizing you? Or kidnapping your TV? Last I
recall, kidnapping an appliance is not a crime. Where do you live?

~~~
tedks
I don't think the comment parent was arguing that such a distinction is
reasonable, but it is the basis of civil forfeiture in the United States.
Money has no constitutional rights, so it can be presumed innocent and seized
until its owner can argue on behalf of its innocence.

------
tracker1
I'm curious if any of the police officers behind the seizures could be sued as
personally liable when no charges are brought.

~~~
trjordan
Personally liable doesn't help. All that does is encourage a lazy police
force, where individuals aren't apt to do anything for fear of losing
everything.

Institutional responsibility does work. If the police department faces real
consequences, they'll figure out a way to clamp down on it. Maybe it's firing
officers that are out of line. Maybe it's simply better training and
guidelines. No matter what, if the organization as a whole suffers from
unreasonable seizures, they'll figure out a way to avoid those consequences in
a robust way.

~~~
tracker1
If those officers are relatively certain the money is connected to drug
activity, give them 30-90 days to build a case, or return the seized assets..
The wholesale forfeiture used is absolutely unconstitutional.

------
ilyaeck
How is this not a major sensation/scandal? "Free country" my foot!

~~~
cglace
Because it only happens to a very small percentage of the population.

------
SN76477
It is an embarrassment that our police cannot act like good citizens.

------
joshpadnick
I often wonder if there is a tech solution to these types of issues. For
example, are records of every instance of a civil forfeiture publicly
available? Would it be helpful (and ethical) to publish this list to shine a
bright spotlight on the practice? Would that make a difference?

It also raises the age-old question of "who polices the police?" The (federal)
DOJ can only do so much, it seems. But maybe ordinary citizens can demand
reform if injustice stares them in the face?

From what I've read in the press (especially NyTimes), the USA justice system
seems to fundamentally disadvantage poor people [1]. The saddest part about
the civil forfeiture business is that it probably affects the poorest people,
who then have the least resources to challenge it.

On a separate note, I know the press is more likely to publish instances of
injustice vs run-of-the-mill "just" justice. I honestly have no concept of if
we live in a society with a tiny bit of corruption, or a lot more than I ever
realized.

[1][http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-
trap.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html)

~~~
jessaustin
_The (federal) DOJ can only do so much, it seems._

DoJ wishes they didn't do the little they already do. They are not opposed to
cops. They are cops. We need something like NTSB, which is specifically set up
not to be friends with FAA.

Your comment about the poor is spot-on. If you're curious and you have some
free time, hang around a courthouse or other judicial building for a day on
which traffic and other minor violations are being adjudicated. You will be
disgusted by the number of people sent to jail because they're not able to pay
the fine for not being able to pay the fine for not being able to pay to fix
their cars. Then note how many people are begging the clerk for more lenient
payment plans on the bill they have for their room and board when they were
sent to jail, because if they can't keep up, guess what? More jail! Ferguson
wasn't really about Michael Brown.

------
forgottenacc56
Police seizures is the foundation of a corrupt society.

------
jostmey
The way civil forfeiture is being used in these examples is a violation of a
citizen's constitutional right and the perpetrators, no matter their
appearance, are criminals and must be dealt with as such.

I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who might say otherwise. They will
tell you that "this" is how the constitution is interpreted. But the
constitution, particularly the bill of rights, was written so that you could
understand it, irregardless of what politicians and lawyers say.

------
wsha
There are legitimate concerns about police overreach, etc., but I can't get
past the part where we start off talking about someone checking $11,000 in
cash.

Was this guy just not familiar with air travel? Or is it less likely that
money will be seized from a checked bag than from a carry-on? It's just absurd
to me to put that much value into a checked bag, especially in the form of
cash.

------
colinshark
"You know, stuff we needed but didn’t necessarily have a budget for. So, when
this money comes in, it’s considered extra"

Except municipalities explicitly write expected seizures into their annual
budgets. They literally must seize property to make their planned budget.

------
known
Corrupt police always try to bully/rob you; Don't confront him; Call a senior
police official or call a lawyer;

------
graycat
Yes, for government to confiscate private property without due process is a
bummer, an outrageous violation of our Constitutional rights. No doubt about
that. In particular, that the police believe that someone is acting
_suspiciously_ is nothing like justification for such confiscation.

Yes, there have long been news articles on this civil forfeiture scam. No
doubt it happens. But have to suspect that it doesn't happen very often to
innocent people. Why so suspect? Because there would be more screaming,
political debates, SCOTUS cases, etc.

In a sense, that there can be such a scam is not too surprising: That is, as
we know well, generally, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". So, we
can expect attacks on our Constitutional rights, and, to get our rights back
or just maintain them, we have to fight, continually. That is, there are
plenty of people who will take our rights unless we do fight back. So, right
along, there needs to be fighting back.

Where is the ACLU in all of this? What about other groups interested in
keeping government under control?

We can fight back by bringing law suits and by voting.

But, in particular, and in practical terms, in a local community, likely it
can be enough to be known and respected in the community, active in politics,
well known to the local politicians, and to have a little chat with them. A
respected local citizen will likely not get pushed around by the police. It's
a little like high school -- it helps to fit in at least a little.

Broadly an immediate, expedient, practical solution is: In public, don't carry
a lot of cash. If have a lot of cash in your house, then, in case your house
gets searched, have that cash well hidden. If you have a business that gets
paid in cash, say, some tens of thousands a month, maybe make a daily deposit
to your business account. Then, get well known at your bank as a successful,
local business person who does get revenue in cash -- hopefully then your bank
won't file papers saying that you are _suspicious_. E.g., generally in
business, a banker wants good business customers, and business person wants
good respect from their banker.

Commonly in a small community, the police know a lot of the people. That can
help, say, if at 3 AM drive to the post office to deposit a letter -- the
local police will just remember who you are and relax.

It might help to make a donation to some local police charity drive and,
there, shake hands with the local chief of police. Maybe can get a window
sticker for your car indicating that you are such a supporter.

Likely if there are enough legal cases where citizens bring suit against civil
forfeiture, the practice will reach the SCOTUS and get struck down. Of course,
legal cases are very expensive, but there are a lot of law school graduates
without much to do; with enough forfeiture cases, some of those lawyers would
take such cases and change the situation.

For long distance travel, there is an old saying, "A stranger in a strange
land". So, it has long been recognized that being such a stranger is not the
usual but has some dangers. E.g., don't carry much cash or anything very
valuable. E.g., if want to carry $15,000 to buy a used car, just go to a bank
and get a certified check for that amount and hide it somewhere, maybe in a
book, fold it up and put it between two credit cards in your wallet, or just
mail it to yourself at your destination. Some of the police might say that
anyone who didn't use such a technique is suspicious.

------
steveeq1
From a statistical perspective, you are far more likely to shot or beaten up
by a black man than you are through a crooked cop. Would you go around telling
people you have the same fears towards black people and say this is a fair
statement?

I think what's going on is availability bias. This is where dramatic or
sensationalized dangers get overplayed in one's mind instead of paying
attention to the actual probabilities. It's basically like shark bites,
airplane crashes, or terrorist attacks. The media tends to sensationalize
these risks because there is money in it and people tend to over-fear them
despite their actual statistical probability. Don't get me wrong, there should
be something done about crooked cops. But it's also important to distinguish
real risk with the types of risks that sell newspapers.

~~~
lkbm
When a black man robs me or beats me up, I have recourse. When a cop does so,
I don't. I don't fear black men because, even if they are more likely to harm
me _, the power dynamic is very, very different. If any random black man had
special power over me, I would be afraid of any that hadn 't earned my trust.
(Men typically do have special power over women, and as a result, we insist
that women need to avoid walking alone at night, not dress provocatively,
carefully watch their drinks in bars, not wear their hair in a ponytail when
running, have their keys ready when they approach their car in a dark parking
lot...always be ready for an attack.)

_ So, yes, black men may rob and beat up people at a higher rate than cops,
but killing is another thing: ~1000 killed by police in 2015[0][1] 765,000
police with arresting powers[2] (I assume we can ignore the bureaucrats.) =
~765 police per police killing.

42 089 131 black/AA people in the US (2014)[3] Assume 50% males: 21 044 566
2,695 murders committed by blacks in 2014.[4] 90% of homicides committed by
males.[4] => 2426\. => 8675 black men per murder by black men.

So police kill at ten times the rate of black men. (Major caveats: killed !=
murders; I didn't exclude black children, and it might be easier to avoid
being killed by a police officer.)

[0] [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-new-estimate-of-
killin...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-new-estimate-of-killings-by-
police-is-way-higher-and-still-too-low/) [1]
[http://killedbypolice.net/](http://killedbypolice.net/) [2]
[http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf)
[3]
[http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html](http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)
[4] [https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2014/...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-
data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls)

~~~
steveeq1
Yes, and what percent of these killing are justified and/or in self defense?
I'd wager the bulk. They have an inherently dangerous profession. Notice, I'm
not saying it's ZERO either, but the risk is much lower than, say, black
shootings.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
According to some, they're all justified. But that's of course ridiculous.

* I'd wager that a good fraction of the justified ones ought not be. It's too difficult to prosecute bad actors here. * I'd also say that a good fraction of the justified ones weren't strictly necessary. Better tactics and technology could make an impact on this.

>They have an inherently dangerous profession.

True, but the danger is often overstated, and there are a couple of ways to
cut their risk of harm. ex: Requiring the wearing of seat belts would
dramatically cut their risk.

>but the risk is much lower than, say, black shootings.

I also doubt whether that's the case. Got a source?

------
joesmo
This is one of the reasons I cannot respect the police or the judicial system
in this country and I seriously question those who do.

------
samstave
I fucking love the fact that HNers while perhaps not knowing, overmen
outrightly deny it, are a part of /r/conspiracy and dont even realize it.

the whole system needs disruption, that's what we do.

------
baakss
Someone checked a bag with $11,000 cash in it that he saved up by waiting
tables over 5 years? So many questions...

~~~
adekok
An argument from ignorance is not good.

"I don't understand how he saved that money, so it's probably via some
nefarious means".

No, a thousand times no. The government has billions of dollars to spend on
prosecuting me. I have much less to spend defending myself.

The standards should be set such that it is very hard for the government to
convict me, by requiring things like "evidence", and "probably cause". The
standards should be that it is very easy to defend myself "prove your
conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt, or I walk".

The alternative is totalitarian dictatorships. The guy in charge thinks you're
bad? Yup. You're bad. No trial, no defence, no conviction. Just secret police
knocking down your door at 2am, and your neighbors waking up the next day with
you gone.

Everyone is too afraid to defend themselves, so the dictatorship continues.

History shows that's the result of opinions like yours. It's why you're
getting downvoted.

~~~
baakss
First off, upon googling this case beyond the two paragraphs, the money didn't
just come from waiting tables and working retail. I've done both, and saving
that much would have been nearly impossible for me. So while you question that
assumption, it turns out I was right. At no point did I suggest the source of
the money was nefarious.

Second, I'm much more concerned with the foolishness of putting one's life
savings ($11,000) in a bag, and handing that bag off to someone, who will hand
it off to someone else, who will hopefully put it in the right plane, and then
someone else will hopefully pick it up, and that person will put it on the
right conveyor belt, and nobody else will just take the bag anyway off the
conveyor belt and walk off with it.

~~~
siphor
Why is it unreasonable to make 11k in tip money? tips are usually cash.... I
have bartender friends who make a ton of cash.

Yea, does seem pretty foolish that he checked it. But how is that related to
anything about the police seizing it?

