
How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime - rl3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/11/how-the-dea-took-a-young-mans-life-savings-without-ever-charging-him-of-a-crime/
======
imroot
While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law
as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this --
seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they
cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts
while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail
for 120+ days, they'll jump at any opportunity to be released; that includes a
plea agreement that includes no more jail time, but, generally also includes
more financial obligations (probation, fine, license reinstatement) against
the defendant.

We've moved away from a society where the police were there to truly protect
and serve the community (think 1950's/60's beat cop walking the blocks during
his shift) to a totalitarian police state (constant erosion of the 4th
amendment, nexus centers, sweeping overreaches of the third party doctrine,
stingrays, and mass deployment of license plate scanners). Big Brother would
be proud.

~~~
itistoday2
I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using
language to mask a very basic crime.

What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it
anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to
enable the very act that was committed.

George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc)

Call it "civil forfeiture" once if you have to (perhaps as a footnote). But to
repeatedly use such "soft language" is to delay an end to such injustice.

~~~
thedufer
Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not
agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no
different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.

~~~
itistoday2
> _Civil forfeiture isn 't "soft language", it's a precise legal term._

It is both.

> _calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with
> taxation._

Taxation today is theft.

~~~
Frondo
Taxation isn't theft.

Taxation is you paying the bill you've incurred for living in this country.
You've lived here, gotten some benefit from the services the government
provides, and when the bill comes you start saying "theft!! theft!!!"?

The anti-tax crowd is the biggest bunch of moochers and freeloaders this side
of Wall Street. They're just out for a free ride, leaving the rest of us to
pay for it.

~~~
itistoday2
Stereotypes and ad hominem don't help the conversation.

I am not "anti-tax". I think taxation is a good idea as it helps a community
re-invest in itself. I am anti-theft.

Saying today's taxation is not theft won't change the reality that it is. Nor
will downvoting this post change that reality. In fact, barring a change in
the definition of the word, there is not a single action in this universe that
can change the reality that taking something that belongs to someone else
without their permission is theft.

~~~
Frondo
You agree to pay taxes by continuing to live here.

Taxes aren't theft any more than the check at the end of a restaurant meal is
theft.

In both cases, you agree to pay something in exchange for something (a meal, a
functioning government, etc).

~~~
itistoday2
> _You agree to pay taxes by continuing to live here._

If we were free to move to a country where we agreed with the laws you might
be right. That's not reality though.

We are not (currently) free to choose how we pay taxes in any country and our
freedom to move from one country to another is restricted.

So, sorry, I never agreed to pay these taxes, I have little say in how they're
used, and I have no alternatives except to go to prison. That's not freedom.
That's simply coercion and theft.

~~~
Frondo
You are free to move to another country. The fact that no other country meets
your very specific requirements doesn't mean that you are not obligated to pay
for living in this one.

If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want, that does not
grant you the right to take a car without paying for it.

So, yes, you do agree to pay these taxes by continuing to live here.

~~~
itistoday2
> _You are free to move to another country._

Please explain how I can do that. I would actually like to move to
Switzerland, could you explain how I can freely do that as everything I've
researched indicates it's neither free nor possible in any reasonable amount
of time. If not Switzerland I'll settle for some other country where I can
live freely and be safe from coercion.

> _If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want..._

Nobody is forcing me to buy the car with the threat of prison if I don't, and
I do not need a car to survive. I do need to live someplace however.

~~~
Frondo
You can leave the U.S. whenever you want. The U.S. isn't restricting your
ability to leave.

If the country of your choice doesn't permit you to emigrate, that doesn't
mean that you're suddenly free from your obligations to whatever country will
host you.

Wouldn't that be convenient? "Sir, I don't have to pay taxes. I want to move
to Switzerland, but they're full right now, so I can't."

(And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole out of the
antitax crowd--for nearly all cases, they'll simply garnish your wages, or
something equally non-freedom-constraining.)

~~~
itistoday2
It doesn't help if all other countries both severely restrict entry and/or
force a tax upon you. I'd just end up in the same exact situation.

> _And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole..._

It's not hyperbole. If you willfully fail to file that's grounds for
imprisonment:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/terrible-things-that-could-
ha...](http://www.businessinsider.com/terrible-things-that-could-happen-if-
you-dont-do-your-taxes-2014-4)

You're probably thinking of cases when people "forget" or make "mistakes" in
their filing.

> _...out of the antitax crowd_

I mentioned this already, I am not anti-tax. Please cut it with the labeling.
It's late. We're going in circles. Have a good night, I won't be replying to
whatever you post next.

~~~
Frondo
Fine, you're not antitax. You're just engaging in a lengthy thread debate
using their common arguments. I stand by my statement w.r.t. the antitax
crowd.

And again, whether _all other countries_ do not meet your preference or
requirement does not free you from your obligations to this one, as long as
you live here.

Whether other countries don't allow you in, don't allow you to stay, don't
govern the way you like, or whatever other complaint you may have about other
countries, that does not change your present-day relationship to this one:
that you live here, and as such are obligated to pay taxes as long as you do.

And of course there are, right now, many other countries that you could
emigrate to if you liked. Even if your A-list countries aren't open, you still
have lots of options.

~~~
jqgatsby
My hat is off to Frondo and notahacker. I've occasionally (regrettably,
foolishly) tried to argue it out with the "taxation is theft" folks, and this
is the first time I've seen one of them actually give up from exhaustion. I'm
sure he'll recharge and come back tomorrow once he looks up the next argument
in his playbook, but even temporary victories must be savored.

Sorry, itistoday2, I'm sure you're a nice person in person, but the argument
you're making is obnoxious. Have you noticed how people get really annoyed
when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!

~~~
techlibertarian
> Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not
> because it's a good argument!

People also used to get annoyed when people said the Earth wasn't the center
of the solar system.

~~~
ubernostrum
They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, and they laughed at Bozo
the Clown.

------
DigitalSea
Civil forfeiture rules are disgusting. Sadly there are plenty of stories out
there like this, people have lost their homes, cars and livelihoods because of
these draconian laws around asset forfeiture.

The circumstances under which your property can be taken are incredibly
overreaching and unfair. There have been situations where people have had
their homes taken away for ridiculous situations like this one:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-
civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/)

We need to get rid of these laws entirely or at the very least, make it a more
fair playing field. The authorities should be expected to bring some evidence
to the table, not assume guilty until proven innocence.

~~~
j42
Honestly we're really lucky to have these asset forfeiture programs in place;
money has been given a free reign for _far_ too long.

The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned
protocol... If the government didn't, who _would_ hold our money accountable
for the criminal behavior it's been involved in? Just look at the facts...
almost 80% of bills have touched drugs! Appalling!

And they're transparent about the process--they put that filthy money on trial
even though _it keeps refusing to talk_. Enough 'shock and awe' from our DA's
and I know we'll get there eventually... We need harsher sentencing
guidelines!!

[United States vs. $1,058.00 of U.S.
Currency]([https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-
curre...](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-105800-in-us-currency))

I certainly sleep better at night knowing that the currency loitering in my
pocket doesn't get a pass on its delinquent past just because it's an
inanimate object...

~~~
leap_ahead
>> The DEA is looking out for our safety by implementing this well-intentioned
protocol

Criminals have a large body of very smart people working for them to develop
new creative ways or hiding money flows across different legal entities and
different jurisdictions. These people don't travel with cash. You won't even
find out their names.

These laws don't help with serious offenders just catch some small fish on
occasion and also terrorize ordinary innocent people.

~~~
j42
Very true, and actually you touched on something really interesting--when a
government attempts to regulate social behavior that _cannot_ be regulated
(e.g. drugs, morals, thought, etc.) you see this dynamic take over.

In the case of black markets, yes, there is a great deal of obfuscation,
however on a civil level and in business with the tax code it essentially
creates an "arms race of precedent" in the courts, wherein those with capital
exploit loopholes in the legal system to establish new precedents that can
circumvent any spirit of the law for decades to come. In most cases I see this
as a positive thing, but when state and federal prosecutors use this against
civilians, it can have some truly ridiculous outcomes.

Speaking to your comment about the black market specifically, though, I raised
this concern when Obama signed that executive notice last month pertaining to
individuals on the SDN list--as a hypothetical, if someone on that list were
to have a criminal enterprise, and if that criminal enterprise was using a
legitimate merchant processing account to obfuscate funds (as per your "ways
of hiding money"), then ANYONE who had ever processed a credit-card
transaction with that account would be liable to have their assets frozen
indefinitely and with impunity by the US government.

Dangerous precedent indeed.

------
Animats
When the Heritage Foundation[1] and the ACLU [2] are both against it, you know
it's really bad.

[1] [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-
asset...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-
forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know) [2]
[https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-
po...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-
practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse)

~~~
jMyles
They're often on the same side of domestic policy.

------
AwesomeGriffin
I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the
US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially
now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai -
gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I
would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about
working and living in the US for the same reasons.

~~~
adventured
The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low
corruption in fact.

The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically
exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption
judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system.

Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're
implying. In fact it's because of that, that most Americans are unaware of
what organizations like the DEA are doing.

The US is less corrupt than France for example:

[https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results](https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results)

~~~
vidarh
> The US is less corrupt than France for example

Careful there. The Transparency International page you link to is the
_perception_ index.

It measures what a set of people _perceives corruption to be like_ in each
country, and composits results from a number of different surveys in a way
that as far as I know is not benchmarked against other data to verify if
survey results actually matches reality.

You can not use it as a measure of how corrupt a country actually is. It's
likely that it's an indicator when the numbers are very far apart, or that it
can be used to spot trends in a country over time, but the relatively small
difference between France and the US seems unlikely to be sufficient to draw
any conclusions.

~~~
baku-fr
Furthermore, we French people are much more pessimistic than people in the US.
Thinking that the politicians are just one corrupted kind is almost a national
sport.

------
jmstout
Related: If you haven't seen John Oliver's segment on civil asset forfeiture,
you should really check it out -
[https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks](https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks)

~~~
tempestn
That was great. I'm going to have to start watching LWT regularly.

------
andrewchambers
It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a
world leader in personal liberty.

~~~
adventured
The scale of the civil forfeitures industry has increased drastically in the
last 15 to 20 years. Most Americans are not yet aware of how large it has
become, because it affects a relatively small percentage of people, and only
in the last few years have the major news outlets begun to write about it (eg
NY Times or Washington Post).

When you have a country of 330 million people as large geographically as the
US, it's very difficult as a citizen in one state, to be aware of what a
national agency (the DEA) is doing across the entire nation, unless the
national news outlets are writing about it.

While a typical American is going about their day to day life, living a local
life (some town, in some county, in some state), the world's largest, most
powerful federal / national government is aggressively attempting to undermine
them in hundreds of ways large and small.

The US has a federal government that is financially the size of the entire
economy of Germany, doing nothing but passing more laws, economic regulations,
taxes, et al. to strangle liberty as much as they can and increase their
power. There is very little else they do, or need to do. What does a beast
that large do? Protect itself, entrench its own interests, grab more money,
write more laws - there is nothing else for it to do most of the time.

Try doing something about that, or even thinking about how you can stop it, if
you're an average citizen. It boggles the mind. Oh yeah, while you're at it,
deal with the fact that the US military (which the NSA belongs to) is now
increasingly taking aim at the US domestic population, you know, the world's
most powerful military with a $600 billion budget.

Now compare this situation to the complexity faced by, say, Finland (5.4
million people) in trying to reign in or adjust its government system. The US
has something like 200,000 pages of federal regulations; try fixing that,
while the vast dedicated law passing machine is busy passing thousands of new
regulations.

It isn't going to stop expanding and over-reaching until it crashes, choking
itself to death.

~~~
tsotha
Civil asset forfeitures are like those towns in BFE that operate on ticket
revenue - the situation rarely gets dealt with because the number of people
getting tickets is an insignificant proportion of the voting population.

~~~
adventured
We're fortunate it has become, essentially, a national government scandal at
this point, with perpetually wider awareness. The national media has taken to
aggressively writing about it lately.

In this case I'm confident we're going to see the forfeiture racket neutered
in the next few years. It seems to have finally gotten large enough to draw
serious Congressional and White House scrutiny to stop it.

~~~
tsotha
I hope you're right. I doubt it, but we'll see.

------
mirimir
"The DEA" didn't steal Joseph Rivers' life savings. Some particular DEA agents
did. And the theft was OKed by various other federal employees, who knew (or
should have known) that he was entirely innocent.

Two things come to mind. We can compensate Joseph for his loss through his
gofundme campaign.[0] But we can also start naming the thieves. One of the
accomplices is reportedly "Sean [R.] Waite, agent-in-charge of the DEA’s
Albuquerque office".[1] Who are the rest?

[0] [http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc](http://www.gofundme.com/u6e2mwc)

[1] [http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791](http://www.freeabq.com/?p=1791)

------
aftbit
One of the original cases establishing the third-party doctrine was US v.
Miller (1976), where SCOTUS ruled that turning over deposit slips and checks
to your bank removes your reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other
hand, if you choose to opt out of using the banking system to avoid this,
you'll need to use cash.

However, if you carry large amounts of cash, you're subject to warrantless
seizure because of some sort of bizarre assumption that the only reason to opt
out of the banking system is if you are a criminal.

~~~
rahimnathwani
This is an interesting point. If the only way to avoid submission of
information to your bank is to forego banking services, then this is not a
meaningful choice, and you're not giving up the information voluntarily.

It is analogous to the point a judge made in a case here:
[http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373](http://fourthamendment.com/?p=10373)

"The submission of prescription information to the PDMP is required by law.
The only way to avoid submission of prescription information to the PDMP is to
forgo medical treatment or to leave the state. This is not a meaningful
choice."

------
dankohn1
For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name.
They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse
occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected
representatives to stop it.

~~~
api
So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with
no chance?

~~~
Frondo
You know, I hear this attitude all the time. I think it reflects lazy
thinking, and the conflation of cynicism and "cool".

Yes, money in politics is a corrupting influence, yes, neither major party
gets it right on some big issues (like the size of our military and how ready
we are to use it, how much wall street gets away with ripping us off, etc),
but are they the same?

No, of course not. Had McCain won in 2008, think we'd be looking at something
like McCainCare now? As imperfect as Obamacare is, it's a vast improvement
over the old status quo, and not an issue the republicans were going to tackle
in our lifetimes.

~~~
patrickaljord
ObamaCare was pretty much the same thing as RomneyCare so yes, we'd probably
have the same thing. Can we stop pretending there's a difference?

~~~
bruceb
I didn't see McCain proposing RomneyCare, hell didn't see Romeny proposing
RomneyCare. So no we would not have had the same thing.

~~~
patrickaljord
Romney basically implemented Obamacare before Obamacare even existed in his
own state. Had he won, he would have implemented it at the federal level. The
only reason he was against Obamacare during the campaign was because he was
running against Obama. ObamaCare by the way isn't that great, it's more of a
kayak for private insurances than anything else and it benefits them more than
anyone else, it's kind of yet another extra tax that benefits a few
corporations.

------
dba7dba
I heard a truly tragic story related to the civil forfeiture rule. Heard from
a friend who heard from a friend.

The family hired an older lady (immigrant, but lived many years in US) who
came to clean their house a few times a week. She shared that she had been
divorced from her husband but in the process ended up with the house. Being
retired with no income (and probably no pension of any kind other than social
security which is not enough), she decided to rent a spare room to someone.

Guess what. The dude renting it turned out to be a drug dealer (or was it just
getting caught smoking weed?). When HE was arrested, somehow the law
enforcement (not sure if local PD or DEA) made a connection to HER house. The
house was seized. This older lady ended up having to stay with friends and
going around working as cleaning/care-taker. Because her house was suddenly
taken away from her, she had no other means of supporting her later years in
life.

When I first heard it, I was like WHAT~~~? This was a few years ago.

And than I started reading about local PD seizing private property on minor
charges.

~~~
sukilot
The PD actually usually skips the charges. It is literally highway robbery:
trooper pulls over a car, searches it, takes the money.

~~~
iribe
This is no different than paying bribes to third world police.

~~~
maze-le
In fact it is...

I've been to Geogia, in the Caucasus-Mountains, not the southern US-State.
There for example, it is common for Highway-Police to set up checkpoints, and
if you are a foreigner, you can be sure to pay them some bucks, 25$, 50$, 100$
somewhere in that dimension. To be sure, this is 'illegal'... No one cares to
stop the police from doing that though, but it is still illegal.

It is something entireley different, to always assume your car can be searched
and all your cash can be stripped from you 'legally'....

~~~
dba7dba
I'd say the seizure by US police is worse. In 3rd countries, you usually
decide how much to give to the corrupt police.

In these seizures in US, EVERY single dollar is taken away.

------
steven2012
This is why we can never, ever trust the government to "do the right thing".
They have a law that should be used against real criminals, and instead they
use it against regular innocent citizens. This is disgusting, and guess what:
it's going to happen time and time again whenever we give the government too
much power over our lives. And yet, it's happening right now.

------
Qantourisc
As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk
travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the
same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.

~~~
strictnein
Whenever I'm overseas I try to watch whatever local news is available, plus
channels like BBC and Russia Today (yes, I know, not great, but RT is
entertaining). The portrayal of the US on the news is so out of whack with
reality that it's really kind of depressing. Reporting bad news out of the US
seems to be a hobby of the world's media, as does misreporting our politics
and social issues.

I've worked for foreign companies whose workers would come over for 6-12
months and would enjoy themselves here greatly. Plus, like any tech worker, I
work with a lot of H1Bs and first generation immigrants who have very little
negative to say about the US and are also quite happy with things. Anecdotal,
I know, but so is what you're reading here and seeing in your media.

Anyways, I'm biased (obviously), and have probably written more than anyone
cared to read, but I'd still recommend visiting someday. Avoid the urban
centers (they don't differ much) and visit our national parks. Places like
Yosemite [0] and the Grand Canyon [1] are breathtaking. For some of my former
colleagues, just visiting places like Idaho or Utah, where they could be miles
and miles away from the nearest person, was enjoyable, as that was something
they could never experience back home (and those states are beautiful as
well). And if you want to be really alone, visit Alaska.

[0] [http://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm](http://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm) [1]
[http://www.nps.gov/grca/index.htm](http://www.nps.gov/grca/index.htm)

~~~
Zigurd
Your viewpoint is just very difficult to understand. You can't build a great
nation on parks. The US has slid to mediocre rankings by many measures. We're
#1 at hardly anything anymore. Except maybe the use of big foam fingers that
claim we are. That degreades the quality of life here.

If we don't fix that stuff, it will be China's world sooner, while they are
still a one-party authoritarian state, rather than later, to give their middle
class time to express their political discontents.

And on top all that, hitting the update button multiple times because it
didn't apparently do anything and then finding you have three copies of your
post is a leading cause of desperate people turning to needle drugs.

~~~
strictnein
There weren't three copies of my post. Maybe your browser puked on itself?

I wasn't talking about how great the nation is. I was discussing how it's a
nice place to visit. It's like you read some other post, because I was simply
saying the most interesting places to visit in the US may be the least
populated.

Not in the mood to discuss various rankings and their issues. Completely
unrelated to anything I wrote.

Have a good one.

~~~
Zigurd
No, that was me before I deleted them.

------
simoncion
I wonder how one's refusal to speak with police, combined with the mounting
judicial pressure against suspicionless searches would interact with cash
seizure operations.

After all: '"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque
DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."'

Would/do Federal rules governing asset forfeiture operations permit agents to
use a search refusal as PC for a search of a person and their effects?

I understand that this discussion is largely an academic one. Realistically,
if the officer _really_ wanted to search and was otherwise barred from
executing a search, he would make a "My knowledge and training told me that he
acted like a terrorist." claim in order to provide PC for the search.

~~~
MCRed
By the way, what I find most heinous is the concept that the money is separate
from its owner.

This is explicitly forbidden in the fourth amendment. Unless the money is
evidence. (which it usually isn't.)

That judges allow this shows that the corruption is not just on the side of
the police who are decking out their gin joints, but on the part of federal
judges who are signing these warrants.

In my case (I had some assets held by a third party that were stolen in this
way) the warrant had straight up lies in it used to justify the theft.... and
worse, not only were they obvious lies, but in the weeks before the theft the
very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't lies in
his court. (The third party was party of a lawsuit that the judge was
hearing). So on one hand he knows the facts of the situation and on the other
he signed an order based on a perjuruous warrant!

~~~
simoncion
> ...the very judge who signed it had been presented proof that they weren't
> lies in his court.

I... think you have an unfortunate typo here?

------
yc1010
No one touched on it but what if "civil forfeiture" style of theft is being
ignored all the way at the top since it helps push people from using cash to
using credit and hence gives more power to the state and banks.

In the past in US gold was seized, now cash is being seized, seems to me like
a trend to herd people into the system where banks and credit card companies
can take a cut of everything + make things easier for IRS + make things easier
for NSA as you be leaving a digital trail.

It is Orwellian beyond belief.

------
sukilot
Snap Judgment did a story this week about how the DEA will pressure child
slave drug mules into becoming unpaid informants, and send them into large
drug deals with armed cartel heavies, under threat of deportation, in exchange
for fake promises of US citizenship.

------
greendata
If the police continue to allow asset seizure eventually an enterprising
politician and banker will find a way to seize police pensions. There will be
no public outcry. Once you institutionalize theft at this level it doesn't
stay put--it grows.

~~~
task_queue
The banker or politician will never be affected by this, why would they try to
upset the police unions?

~~~
greendata
Many US cities are near bankrupt and probably a lot more will be in the next
ten years. There will be enormous political pressure to cut costs. One way to
cut costs is to reduce pensions or fail to fulfill pension promises. I don't
advocate this and in fact I think the police are being setup in some ways. By
allowing some police to engage in what looks like theft the general public
will be amenable to pension cuts in the future.

Just see Detroit as an example of our possible future.

~~~
task_queue
I've never seen police unions on the chopping block. After the most recent
crisis, teacher unions and other government worker unions were paraded around
as needing to be fixed.

------
MCRed
I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this.
"How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..."

I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era).
I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew
then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then.

This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim
government is legitimate and in the best interest if the people when you have
its agents engaging in (literal) highway robbery.

The argument at the time was that this was supposed to be for drugs. The whole
basis of the drug war was that _addiction_ is bad and thus to protect people,
we need to get rid of drugs. OF course as the past century has shown this
doesn't work (I'm including the prohibition era.)

But worse, it has twisted around and is now being used to cause suffering in
people. Let me give you an example:

I went to the same high school as a guy who became an oncologist. Most of his
patients were terminal. The DEA has decided that doctors giving terminally ill
people drugs to relieve them of their pain is some sort of scourge on
society... so they track how often they are prescribed... and then they
average that and go after doctors who "over prescribe".

When they went after him-- he had a small practice-- they came in guns
blazing, arrested everyone, stole all of his valuables, and his computers,
stole the money from his bank and brokerage accounts. Stole the money his wife
had. Stole the money his employees (most of whom were not wealthy.)

He was unable to afford a lawyer because they stole his money. Pre-trial they
made many assertions and presented many documents he believe were dishonest or
forgeries, but he could not prove it because they stole his computers and they
were "accidentally damaged". They certainly weren't returning them.

They charged him and his wife, and told him that if they had to arrest his
wife that she would be in jail as would he at lest a year before it came tot
trial-- and so they'd place his kids with a permanent foster home.

But if he took their plea, he would get a reduced sentence (possibly it was
probation, but It think it was 6 months in jail, plus probation) and they
wouldn't charge his wife and employees.

Yes, they literally held his wife, kids and employees hostage (literally
threatened if you want to be pedantic) unless he would admit to doing
something illegal, even though he was just giving terminally ill people pain
medication.

I think this whole affair is criminal, denying him adequate counsel by
stealing his money, piling absurd charges on top of absurd charges to put
others in jeopardy to manipulate him, it's all criminal.

He took the deal. His family was wiped out-- as part of the "deal" he gave up
that money, and now the DEA is using it to buy toys for themselves...
literally profiting from the crime. His family is in shambles because he can't
practice medicine anymore.

Here's what's really absurd. The idea that terminally ill patients shouldn't
be able to get take any drugs they want. Even if they risk overdose, it's a
quality of life issue and effectively denying them is nothing short of
torture. They shouldn't even need a doctors prescription. This is a fake crime
created to exert control over the populace.

And you know what's worse?

Too many of the other people who went to this high school and knew him
_thought he deserved it_... because obviously they wouldn't charge him if he
weren't guilty.

How can I respect a government that practices this?

How can I respect Reagan who signed this into law? Or clinton who didn't try
and repeal it? Or Bush who didn't either? Or Obama who not only did nothing,
but had Joe Biden as his running mate?

How is this going to turn around? It's not until it starts getting painful.
There are only a few ways to make things painful-- the ballot box is the
preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled
nomination processes so no third party will have a chance.

Another is the bullet box and revolutions rarely turn out well... but they
were the only method our founders could see to prevent exactly this situation.
("It's a republic... if you can keep it"... we've lost it.)

Finally is the soap box.

I'm getting off of mine now.

~~~
PebblesHD
Thats horrifying. Please, if you haven't already, publish this somewhere. This
is something that needs to be shared.

~~~
jMyles
Radley Balko has written extensively about stories just like this one; look
him up.

------
cbsmith
"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest
notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38
million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months
of this year."

Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's
operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly
lucrative.

This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one,
not even greedy shareholders or executives with tons of stock options. Let's
be careful with our use of "lucrative".

~~~
tsotha
The DEA isn't a company. They already get a budget from the treasury and
shouldn't be behaving like a profit-making concern. "Lucrative" is the right
word.

~~~
cbsmith
> The DEA isn't a company.

That's exactly my point. Not being a company, the notion of what is
"lucrative" for the DEA is quite different.

------
stegosaurus
The basic problem is, as people have pointed out, euphemistic political
language and moral relativism.

Asset forfeiture is theft. Taxation is theft. Imprisonment is kidnapping. War
is killing. And so on.

They are not necessarily evil. It would not be evil for me to steal my
neighbours' rifle if I knew he had nefarious plans. It is not evil to take
money from a billionaire if he willingly allows the poor to starve otherwise.

But it is still theft.

Somehow people seem unwilling to use the basic, concrete, obvious terms and
prefer intelligent-sounding euphemisms.

~~~
rayiner
Both asset forfeiture and taxation are taking, but they are not "theft"
because that is taking _in violation of law_. Lawful takings cannot be theft
_by definition._ "Theft" is also not a concept that exists in the world
outside our legal books and dictionaries. In the state of nature, everything
is mine that I can take for myself.

------
rayiner
I think we should repeal the civil forfeiture laws, but the article plays a
little fast and loose with the law.

In a civil forfeiture, the government has the burden to show probable cause
for the forfeiture, and in a contested proceeding has the burden to show that
the assets are subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.

The burden of proof does rest on the property owner for invoking the "innocent
owner" defense, but that is narrower than it sounds. That defense is involved
when, e.g. someone buys property with money that was given to them by someone
who obtained it through illegal activity. The government still has to
establish the money came from illegal activity, but the owner can assert that
they did not know about and did not consent to the illegal activity.

------
ekianjo
The important bit:

> he may have been singled out for a search because he was the only black
> person on that part of the train.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The key part for me is right here -

"A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began
asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why."

Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there.
There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me.
At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for
the cop to be asking it. We, as a society, need to walk this all back starting
right here at this point in the process.

The forfeiture itself is so clearly unconstitutional that I can't imagine how
even a loose constructionist can twist it to make it ok. Much less someone
like Thomas or Scalia. Ugh.

~~~
MCRed
Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in
fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW)
belongs in jail for a long time.

What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this
case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".

~~~
Zigurd
This is why the individuals involved in these acts need to have their names
and faces splashed in the news, and their homes picketed by protesters, for
starters.

Individual discretion, but with collective protection and anonymity. That's
not going to work.

------
vacri
Stories like this show the 2nd Amendment defense of "it protects against
tyrranical government" for the farce it is. Civil forfeiture isn't rare, and
stories have been bubbling up for quite some time. Forget taxes, which
actually go to providing you services, pretty much everyone can agree that
'civil forfeiture' is government agents stealing from the public, with no
service offered in return. Where is the protection that 2nd Amendment is
supposed to give from government?

------
VieElm
Why hasn't this been challenged in court? Seems like civil forfeiture violates
the 4th amendment.

~~~
rhino369
It doesn't violate the 4th amendment because, despite the inaccuracies in the
article, you do get a trial and the government does have the burden of proof.

The DEA agent they are quoting is either ignorant or means that there is no
due process before they seize the money in the first place.

But you do get the due process after the fact.

Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money from
doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money.

There probably should be some quick safeguards put in place to make sure the
cops aren't just stealing cash for no reason forcing a court hearing to get it
back. But the whole process is a lot less thieving that WAPO depicts.

~~~
Meekro
> Most of the time there is no trial because the person they took the money
> from doesn't go back to claim it. Why? Because it was illegal money.

"Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items
taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars" \--
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken)

There's no trial because they go after tiny amounts, generally with no
evidence of guilt, knowing that it won't be worth the owner's time to fight
back.

Read that article I linked if you haven't already, it's quite extensive and
well-researched. And then tell me that this is something other than straight-
up highway robbery.

~~~
rhino369
Ok I'll have to read it tomorrow, but I will since the New Yorker piece about
the execution of an innocent man really changed my opinion on the death
penalty.

------
mr_luc
I'm sure that this is a valued asset in the fight against crime ...

... but as this story illustrates, it's so _shockingly_ immoral as to
constitute robbery.

Shut it down.

~~~
MCRed
I'm not aware of any instances where it was used to fight crime. Seriously,
not one.

~~~
simoncion
_shrug_ Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those
hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes.

I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use
should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot
agree that forfeiture has _never_ been used to fight crime. Much like it's
pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet _has_ swept up evidence of at least _one_
credible terror plot[0], it's pretty clear that at least _one_ instance of
forfeiture use was in the service of crime elimination or punishment.

[0] Before you downvote, understand my stance. The NSA dragnet is
reprehensible and clearly dangerous to the integrity of the Republic. However,
the dragnet is so wide that it can't help but catch some of what the NSA is
looking for. See what I'm getting at?

~~~
cnvogel
I see what you're getting at.

But I also am convinced that, would you present this on public television or
anything with a similar broad distribution, you'd persuade many people to
support civil forfeiture (or the NSA dragnet), _because_ _it 's_ _obviously_
_effective_ _against_ _crime_!

In the general public, only a minority seems to still be interested that means
are somehow proportionate to the ends. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! INCARCERATE
EVERYONE!

~~~
simoncion
You're making an argument that I don't disagree with and that also doesn't
address anything in my comment. :)

I was making a narrow statement that addressed MCRed's comment. My footnote
was presented to make my position abundantly clear to all who would read my
comment.

------
matt_morgan
If this makes you as mad as it makes me, consider supporting the ACLU, which
has been persistent in fighting it:

[https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture](https://www.aclu.org/search/civil%20forfeiture)

------
mindo
Taking whatever from whoever you want for no reason and making it impossible
to get it back sounds like improved version of USSR communism doctrine. The
only difference back then people could steal some back to restore the faith.
Good job USA!

------
bakhy
The USA, the biggest anti-advertisement for democracy. I can only imagine what
could happen to the guy if he was not a Roman.. eh, sorry, US citizen.

------
a3n
"You make it, we'll take it."

Thugs.

------
jrs235
Here's another example of civil forfeiture: [https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-
destroys-small-entrepreneur](https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-
entrepreneur)

------
MrBlue
Solution: bitcoin.

~~~
MichaelGG
Cause DPR/SR didn't have coins seized and auctioned?

~~~
patrickaljord
Technically, using a brainwallet could have prevented that unless they
tortured the guy over it.

------
spacemanmatt
The war on drugs is a war on due process. It should bother you.

~~~
jMyles
It does bother most of us. When polled, more than 4 out of 5 Americans say
that the war on drugs has failed.

------
petjuh
Well, that could partly explain the wealth-gap - if black people are robbed of
their money by the police of course they will have less.

------
meric
_A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began
asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why._

I wonder if the DEA agent followed him on the train after having found out the
bank had reported a bunch of "suspicious" cash withdrawals and given up the
victim's identity.

~~~
spacemanmatt
That's how parallel construction works.

------
gadders
I don't know how people can read stories like this and not at least feel some
attraction for libertarianism.

------
TheCondor
In the first batch of comments on WaPo there is a link to the petition:
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-
forf...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-civil-forfeiture)

With close to zero interest at this point

------
masterleep
Of course, this is unlawful, but that doesn't really seem to stop the
government these days.

~~~
superuser2
Civil forfeiture is entirely within the legal system, provided for by
democratically appointed laws, upheld time and time again by judges. There is
no twist of language that makes this "unlawful." Civil forfeiture is a facet
of law.

As such, it is also subject to being eliminated by legislatures. As the
article mentions, New Mexico did this. That this has not happened at the
federal level is in fact not an indication of a misbehaving executive branch.
It is an indication that Congressman do not find the issue relevant to their
reelection.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_background)

------
winter_blue
Can they take money from your bank account, though? If they can't, the
solution seems to be keeping your money electronic as much as possible. (I
personally never carry more than $80 around, partly because getting mugged is
not uncommon in NYC.)

------
weitzj
The justice system is messed up, if the burdon of proof falls on the
defendant.

------
outworlder
From the article:

> The practice has proven to be controversial.

Is that the new slang for 'criminal' or for 'state-sponsored theft'?

------
einrealist
He should tell everyone that it was actually 32,000 USD that was taken from
him.

------
andrewstuart
When public servants can directly fine citizens in cash, corruption pervades.

------
visarga
Wait, wasn't this how democracy was supposed to work in the Land of the
Free(TM)? I mean, he had guilty money. I am sure those money passed through
the hands of drug dealers at some point in their existence.

------
jlebrech
a real drug dealer would value $16k more than a DEA agents life.

it's day light robbery.

------
datamingle
Can everyone vote for a libertarian candidate in your elections? Tired of govt
overreach

------
nekopa
This sounds like the beginning of a modern day Robin Hood movie.

~~~
ekianjo
Robin Hood did not steal from the poor, if I remember correctly.

~~~
nekopa
Normally most Robin Hood movies start off showing the bad guys, the Sheriffs
men, stealing from the poor.

It takes a while for Robin to show up, and it seems that in real life, this
will never be the case - as $3.9 billion worth of seizures is going to
motivate the cops and Feds to fight any changes to this legislation tooth and
nail.

------
ubersync
Wouldn't happen with bitcoins.

~~~
anigbrowl
It wouldn't have happened with a visa or mastercard either. Bitcoin has
literally nothing to do with this.

~~~
exo762
Apparently it does happen with bank accounts. So no, your point does not
stand.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Seizures_of_funds_in_a_bank_account)

EDIT: In fact Bitcoin is much better protected against this. m-of-n
signatures, brain wallets, hardware devices such as Tresor, etc.

------
leap_ahead
Russian citizen here.

This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last
decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil
liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A
few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship.
Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip.

Let's say I go there. Then what? My cell phone and laptop can be confiscated
at the airport for no reason. When I continue on to the streets I can be
mugged by the police and get all of my money taken from me. And then when I go
on without my phone or any money in my pocket, I can get killed in a mass
shooting by yet another disgruntled worker who's just been laid off or by a
high school freak whose girlfriend has just left him. Or maybe I don't get
shot but then get sued by somebody for whatever reason and then I'm going to
need from a few hundred thousands bucks to a few millions to defend myself in
a court. Which will probably consider a Russian citizen a hacker and a
criminal and pronounce me guilty anyway.

Sound like a true third world country to me. I'm not saying Russia is much
better. But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of
the 60s-80s.

What happened to you? How have you fallen so low?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
The internet happened. We are no less corrupt than we ever were. We are just
more obvious about it now because of the internet. People always think, "oh,
things were so much better back in the day". In reality, no, they weren't. It
was just different. Back in the day, we wouldn't let blacks use the same
bathroom or water fountain. Now we steal their money.

It is the same America it always was. We just have more people airing our
dirty laundry.

~~~
humanrebar
> We are no less corrupt than we ever were.

I'm not sure. America used to be a lot more diverse in how it was governed.
Thought Chicago was too corrupt? Move to California.

More and more issues are becoming federal issues (drugs, bridge maintenance,
even), so corruption and injustice becomes a universal problem.

------
bcook
I keep seeing these stories and, yes, civil forfeiture is a problem, but why
are these people traveling with CASH in these amounts? I always get a
cashier's check or similar since it offers me some protection.

~~~
a3n
Who do you make it out to, and when?

~~~
anigbrowl
You don't make it out to anyone. A cashier's check is a bearer instrument
issued by the bank against its own funds.

~~~
a3n
"The payee's name, the written and numeric amount to be tendered, the
remitter's information, and other tracking information (such as the branch of
issue), are printed on the front of the check."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashier%27s_check](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashier%27s_check)

"A bearer instrument is a document that indicates that the owner of the
document has title to property, such as shares or bonds. Bearer instruments
differ from normal registered instruments, in that no records are kept of who
owns the underlying property, or of the transactions involving transfer of
ownership. Whoever physically holds the bearer bond papers is assumed to be
the owner of the property. This is useful for investors and corporate officers
who wish to retain anonymity, but ownership is extremely difficult to recover
in event of loss or theft."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_instrument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_instrument)

------
steve19
I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly)....

... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in
criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it
makes a difference in the outrage in this case.

People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry
confiscated.

Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned should be pretty simple.
Print out a bank statement (he said he withdrew it from an out of state bank)
and take it to the nearest DEA (or US Marshal?) office.

On the other hand, if he could not furnish a bank statement, has a history of
drug dealing or other criminal activity I would be no more outraged than when
a local drug dealer has his car confiscated. (Although I would still be
against the law in principle)

~~~
daeken
> ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved
> in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely
> it makes a difference in the outrage in this case.

The Washington Post confirmed that he was never tried for any crime, let alone
convicted. The legal system of the US is built on the premise that guilt must
be shown, and innocence presumed. They didn't even attempt to show he was
guilty -- instead, they just stole his money.

