
Judge orders Wyoming to return $92k seized by officers - warrenm
http://fox6now.com/2017/12/01/judge-orders-wyoming-to-return-92000-seized-by-officers/
======
zik
Where are the criminal charges against the officers? When the worst that can
happen as the result of a theft is there's an outside chance that you might
have to give the money back and there'll be no negative repercussions why
wouldn't you keep on stealing?

~~~
tantalor
Don't hold your breath, they were doing their job.

~~~
SauciestGNU
If this is their job then the entire institution of policing is irredeemably
flawed and we ought to scrap it.

If these officers were acting outside of the law then they should be fired and
charged with a crime.

~~~
exelius
> If this is their job then the entire institution of policing is irredeemably
> flawed and we ought to scrap it.

Our main problem as a society is that half the country believes the above, and
the other half believes that the half that isn't them are all lawless savages
who need order imposed by a heavy hand.

This can't end well.

~~~
jMyles
> Our main problem as a society is that half the country believes the above,
> and the other half believes that the half that isn't them are all lawless
> savages who need order imposed by a heavy hand.

I have just completed an 18-month tour of the country by land
(thisisthebus.com). I've met people from every corner of the land and talked
politics, technology, religion, and all sorts of other things with literally
hundreds, probably a couple thousand, at urban watering holes, suburban
campfires, and rural churches.

Please point me to the place where I might find the latter half of the
population you've described.

From the Everglades to the Oregon Coast, from the desert to the Hudson Valley,
I've searched long and hard and haven't found them.

Everybody in this country wants peace. And a chance for their families to live
in harmony in their communities. Nobody - (excuse my language) fucking nobody
- wants two million people in prison. Nobody.

~~~
SwellJoe
With all due respect and not to have a pissing contest, but I've been
traveling, first in a motorhome and now with an old Avion travel trailer, for
about 7 of the past 9 years (sort of hard to pin down exactly what "traveling"
means in this context since sometimes I park in one place for a few months,
but it includes multiple drives from coast to coast and from Alaska to
southern Mexico), and I've met quite a few law-and-order Republicans who
absolutely believe that the vast majority of people in prison deserve to be
there, that if people just do what police say there won't be any more police
brutality, and that maybe we should spend more money on law enforcement and
give police more power. It's certainly not half, but it's a sizable portion of
the US population, and clearly a sizeable portion of the voting population,
since our government has been dramatically reshaped in the past year by them.

It's sometimes surprising, too. I've met sweet old ladies that as long as
topics were of the travel and weather variety seemed perfectly normal. The
moment politics came up, they'd show a mean side that would really throw me
for a loop. Racism with a shocking lack of self-awareness about their racism
is one of the biggest surprises.

That said, rather than arguing that you're wrong about the people you've met,
I suspect you've experienced bias in the people you meet in traveling the way
you do. I've noticed there is a bias in the people I interact with most, for
sure; lots of hippies, train kids, as well as people who love the outdoors (in
a hiking and biking in national and state parks sort of way, rather than a
hunting and fishing sort of way), etc. frequent some of my favorite places to
go. But I still meet enough middle-class white folks who have alarming (to me)
ideas about police and race and justice in America.

If nobody wanted 2.2 million people in prison, we wouldn't have 2.2 million
people in prison. _Somebody_ sure as hell wants it because they vote over and
over for the people that perpetuate it. We can't pretend no one is
responsible. There are people who made decisions that led us inexorably to
this outcome, and people making decisions daily to maintain and even expand
the prison industrial complex.

~~~
SauciestGNU
As an aside, the train kids are my favorite. They can be a real handful (to
put it mildly) but damn if that isn't an interesting culture.

~~~
SwellJoe
They are certainly interesting and most have nothing but kind intentions. They
lead interesting but dangerous lives. I like chatting with them in measured
doses but wouldn't want to hang out with them for long. There's a lot of
fighting, a lot of yelling, a lot of drugs of questionable formulation, a lot
of untreated mental illness, etc. But, they often know a lot about the areas
where they roam and have fun stories.

------
slazaro
Every time I hear about asset forfeiture I can't believe this is legal. It
just blows my mind.

~~~
leggomylibro
Just another reminder that there is no rule of law in the USA; its judicial
system is an arm of oppression, not service.

There's nothing we as individuals can _do_ about it besides acknowledging the
illegitimacy of laws and abiding by a basic empathetic moral code, but don't
kid yourself about how that will be treated.

If you feel like a law is wrong, look at why it was passed. There might be
reasoning you aren't thinking of, like environmental damages. If you still
feel like it's wrong, look at how likely the action it forbids is to hurt
someone else by intent or accident. If you feel like that's extremely
unlikely, and don't think you'll get caught, break that law!

Part of civil disobedience is acknowledging that you may get caught and
punished. But in doing so, you are riding on the fact that the punishment _is_
arbitrary and offensive, which would rally people in support of you if it is
carried out. At least, that's the idea. The real problem comes when your
government is more than happy to simply arrest/beat/shoot people until they
quiet down.

~~~
adventured
Fortunately you're wrong. In reality, the US is one of the 20 least corrupt
nations on the planet, on par with Ireland and Japan and less corrupt than
France. It has very strong property protection laws, which is both why the
judge returned the money (naturally that would happen in a nation with no rule
of law huh), and why the Obama Administration took important steps to neuter
civil asset forfeiture abuse. Can more be done to fully end the abuse? Of
course.

[https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept...](https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016)

The US also has rare universal Congressional support for ending civil asset
forfeiture abuses. Jeff Sessions undid some of the fixes the Obama
Administration made; it turns out that might have been ideal, as Congress is
now going to put it down for good by law.

Sept 2017:

"In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture"

"The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support."

[https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-
house-p...](https://theintercept.com/2017/09/12/in-surprise-vote-house-passes-
amendment-to-restrict-asset-forfeiture/)

Nov 2017:

"A bipartisan group of senators wants to defund Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' expansion of the Justice Department's civil asset forfeiture
program, following similar efforts by libertarian-leaning and progressive
members of the House earlier this year."

[http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-
defundi...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/senators-press-for-defunding-of-
jeff-ses)

~~~
markdown
> least corrupt nations on the planet

Only because you don't define lobbying as corruption. In most (any?) other
nation, individuals and corporations paying legislators to vote a certain way
fits the definition of bribery and corruption perfectly.

~~~
lawn
This combined with civil forfeiture gives me a really hard time classifying it
as anything else than corrupt.

~~~
CodeMage
Let's not forget about bill riders:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_\(legislation\))

------
noarchy
At the very least, we should try to control the vocabulary here. Instead of
using _their_ terms (like "seize" or "asset forfeiture"), we should call this
theft, robbery, and so forth, to reflect what's happening. Those would make
for very different headlines.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _Parhamovich told The Associated Press that he was traveling to several
> performances in Western states and decided to bring his “life savings”
> because maintenance staff often came into his rented apartment in Madison,
> Wisconsin. The 50-year-old hid the money inside a speaker he was bringing
> along on the trip. [...]

Parhamovich said the officers implied that carrying that much cash was
illegal. He lied and said it was a friend’s._

He brought his “life savings” with him on a road trip, hidden in a speaker,
and then lied to the police about it. It doesn’t take a cynic to see how
ridiculously suspicious that is. There’s plenty of material to start a civil
forfeiture case, where the government has to ultimately prove by a
preponderance of the evidence (ie “more likely than not”) that the money was
the proceeds of illegal activity, the same standard as lawsuits between
private citizens.

This is not a theft or robbery. It’s the police failing to convince a court in
the end.

Why seize things upfront in cases like this? If they let the money go, the
government would likely never see it again. The goal is to stop organized
crime from successfully moving money around and laundering it. It was only a
few decades ago that organized crime operated with near impunity in this
country. Laws such as RICO and those strengthening civil asset forfeiture are
no small part of our success in turning the tide against criminal
organizations.

It’s easy to forget how we got here, but if we let uninformed outrage rule the
day, then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread
fear and violence without consequence.

It is always worth investigating reform, but you should think twice about
demonizing those who are carrying out the instructions we gave them.

==========================

Edit: HN is rate-limiting me, so I’m responding to erpellan’s very good point
here:

You’re right that it’s not sufficient reason for seizure by itself, it’s
actually been litigated to that effect before iirc. But combined with other
factors, like lying to the police (a crime itself in many jurisdictions as
Michael Flynn has just learned), it can help establish the burden of proof
necessary for seizure pending litigation.

(Further, he consented to the seizure in this case.)

~~~
hajile
Civil asset forfeiture is never justified. If you don't have a case, you don't
have a case.

'Acting suspicious" warrants asking questions, NOT taking things when those
questions don't turn up anything. The idea that it stops organized crime is
also rediculous. No crime Lord was ever brought down by civil asset
forfeiture. They work that statistic into their prices like any other for-
profit Enterprise would and go on with business as usual.

I'd also clear up the "given orders" bit. You cannot really make a good case
for police departments ordering their officers to simply take any and all
money they see. That is left to the officers discretion. In this case, the
officer decided to abuse his power over the general population. To take your
orders idea to the end; Let's assume that the police department as a whole
requires such theft. We aren't in a country without freedom of the press. Any
one of those officers could (and indeed had a duty to) record and publish the
illegal order. If such an order exists, then EVERY officer is willingly
complicit.

Finally, let's say that we do need limited ability to lock up people's things.
That should most definitely involve a case against the individual rather than
against the possession itself. It should involve the rights to an expidited
trial. Most importantly, it should involve a large burden of proof like any
criminal case rather than simple majority.

~~~
marcoperaza
Lying to police is more than acting suspicious.

I’m not claiming that police have a moral carte blanche for overzealous
seizures. I’m saying that when they do their duty in good faith and then lose
in court, we shouldn’t jump to calling them robbers.

To your last point, the standard in civil court is preponderance/more-likely-
than-not/“majority”. Civil asset forfeiture is not a criminal conviction,
carries no risk of prison time, and involves solely the transfer of property
from one (who is not entitled to it) to another (who is at least more entitled
to it). If I sue you for everything you’re worth, or claim rightful ownership
of your land in an action directly on the property, I only need to prove my
case by a preponderance. Why should it be any different here?

A lot is made over the fact that the civil action is against the property
instead of the person it’s being seized from. This isn’t as relevant as it
sounds and it has nothing to do with the standard of proof being lower: the
standard in all civil cases is preponderance of the evidence.

The suit is against the property because it’s an _in rem_ lawsuit where the
only thing being litigated is the disposition of the property. They are not
trying to prove that the person it was seized from did anything illegal, just
that the asset itself is the proceeds of a crime, whoever may have committed
that crime.

------
downandout
These stories make my blood boil, as they should all other people. The worst
part of it is that people like to think that most police officers are good
people just doing their jobs. However, their job is NOT supposed to involve
stealing people’s life savings. I can’t see how any cop doing civil
forfeitures, except in cases with extreme proof, (known drug dealer, drugs in
the car, etc.) has any redeeming qualities as a human being. The officers
involved in this and thousands of other cases are worse than the criminals
they are paid to pursue - they are nothing more than armed members of a gang
that conducts highway robberies.

~~~
exelius
I find a lot of it is selection bias -- because the police generally interact
with criminals, they come to view the whole population as criminal. Do it long
enough, you start to get jaded and ask yourself "why do I follow the law when
all these people break it with few consequences?"

Also see the effects of the "thin blue line" eroding institutional morality...
it's easy to get to a place where we are -- even white people in America no
longer trust the police.

------
danschumann
Having money is not suspicious. I'm sick of agencies acting as self-
propagating thieves. The whole drug war needs to end.

~~~
oh_sigh
Well, having tens of thousands of dollars hidden in a speaker is suspicious.
But it seems that there is a verifiable story to go along with it

~~~
haZard_OS
Even without a story to go along with it, engaging in "suspicious" activity is
no cause for having your property stripped from you without due process.

------
dumbfounder
One more reason we need cryptocurrency. Asset forfeiture is incentive for the
police to steal. Given the wrong incentives, even to the best of people, you
will get the wrong outcome.

~~~
lawn
You're getting downvoted but you have a good point. You can seize
cryptocurrencies as well but it will be harder to force someone to give up
their password/pin. If they even manage to find your wallet which is much
easier to hide than a stack of 92k cash.

~~~
squegles
If they manage to 'seize' your encrypted wallet, you can restore your backup
on another device and move your crypto elsewhere.

~~~
sjy
The FBI transfers seized cryptocurrency to its own wallet to prevent this:
[https://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/](https://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/)

~~~
lawn
They would need to break your encryption first.

------
turc1656
This is a prime example of why you never answer questions like this from
police. Give them nothing and they have nothing to twist against you. In a
rigged system, the best option is to not play whenever possible.

~~~
jstarfish
He didn't answer their questions though. He did not give them permission to
search the car. He refused, so they brought in a dog, (supposedly) made it act
like it found drugs, and used that as probable cause to conduct a search.

~~~
milesokeefe
But he did sign a form 'releasing' the money to them.

~~~
MertsA
Anything signed would have been arguably under duress. If someone is actively
threatening you and coercing you to sign something the signature is
irrelevant.

------
mywittyname
Any word on damages?

------
0xWilliam
Why is this here? On HackerNews? Since we are on the topic why are there more
and more political stories on hackernews?

------
greggarious
Is there a lower bound on how much cash is "suspicious" under these laws? I
feel like it's only a matter of time until some enterprising department sets
up along one of the routes leading into Las Vegas and makes a killing.

"Who carries around a thousand dollars in their wallet? Obvious drug money!"

~~~
jstarfish
> Is there a lower bound on how much cash is "suspicious" under these laws?

$100. And even then it depends on your skin color and where this is being
called into question.

It's more plausible to have $10000 in your pocket in Vegas than $1000 in the
South Bronx.

------
j_s
I must be missing something -- what did TechDirt add to the original article?

~~~
dang
Ok, we've changed the url from
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171202/15391338726/judge...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171202/15391338726/judge-
hands-back-92000-taken-musician-cops-failing-to-buckle-his-seatbelt.shtml) to
the news article it points to.

~~~
warrenm
That's kinda dumb: the techdirt article added quite a bit to the original
story

------
ringaroundthetx
Starting to think those 50 pesos the Mexican police took from me were civilly
seized as part of an investigation I'm unaware of.

I must have like a dozen civil asset forfeiture cases open in Mexico.

------
VeronicaJJ123
This is the reason why I sympathize with drug dealers more than law
enforcement officers.

------
turblety
[deleted]

~~~
turc1656
Civil Asset Forfeiture has nothing to do with Trump. This outright theft of
money and other assets during traffic stops has been going on for years. It
was originally enacted to help deal with gangs and drug dealers who tend not
to use banks for obvious reasons. This would allow law enforcement to seize
the cash, drugs, cars, etc. to help suppress their illegal operations by
confiscating their capital and equipment/vehicles.

It has since been perverted into the kind of travesty this article details.
Personally, I don't even support Civil Asset Forfeiture on any level because
it seems to violate every notion of property rights as well as some basic
human rights that we supposedly believe here in America.

EDIT: my reference to Trump was in regards to OP's reference, which has now
been edited out.

------
cr0sh
While I agree that this seizure of money wasn't right, and shouldn't have
happened, one does have to wonder about the guy...

...has he never heard of safe deposit boxes?

It sounds like he works strictly on cash. Usually, to get a safe deposit box,
you have to have an account with the bank you are getting one at (and there
might be other restrictions as well). If he didn't have a checking account and
couldn't meet any other restrictions, then he couldn't get the box.

But once you had the box, you could put the money in it, and not really worry
about it. I just don't know why he didn't do this. It certainly couldn't have
been lack of funds. He had more than enough to open an account, and pay for
one year on a box big enough to hold the rest of the money.

So if he didn't do this - why? One good reason I can think of might be -
operating with cash only - not paying income taxes. Sadly, his efforts at
getting his cash back will likely cause him more problems with the IRS down
the road.

He really didn't think this whole thing through, and it ultimately caught up
with him. Of course, the fact that he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, against a
law which makes it a crime of some manner in just about every state (save
one), and it's also a federal law - all says something about his being ill
prepared.

~~~
jstarfish
FWIW, cash is not FDIC insured while in a safe deposit box. And it doesn't
solve his "problem" of how to safely move it around without getting it seized.

