
Stop and Seize - cgtyoder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2
======
wheaties
The fourth amendment, protection against unlawful search and seizure, was put
into the constitution as a direct consequence of the very laws that civil
forfeiture was based upon. That makes me sad. How can we, as a society,
function in which we've incentivized our own police force to take property
from our citizens without proof of a crime? It just doesn't make sense.

See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
danschumann
This is a dangerous precedent that obviously does not have enough oversight if
they are willing to take $2,500 moving money that a son received from his
father.

------
spodek
Talk about Orwellian double-speak: they call it "asset forfeiture" and the
"Equitable Sharing Program." It's _theft_ and everybody knows it.

> "despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information
> could violate privacy and constitutional protections."

It's _illegal_ , pure and simple. No need to sugar coat.

> "Police can seize cash that they find if they have probable cause to suspect
> that it is related to criminal activity. The seizure happens through a civil
> action known as asset forfeiture. Police do not need to charge a person with
> a crime. The burden of proof is then on the driver to show that the cash is
> not related to a crime by a legal standard known as preponderance of the
> evidence."

Cops in the story act like the mere existence of a lot of cash is probably
cause. _This is the opposite of one of the major reasons for law and law
enforcement: to protect people 's property_. We have police so we can feel
secure with our property, not to take it so we have to fight back for it.

~~~
jfoutz
The only obligation of the police is to investigate crime and arrest
criminals. They have no requirement to protect people, much less property.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0)

------
DanielBMarkham
_“Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or
who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the
police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force
in South Florida. “It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand
dollars from a driver by the side of the road.”_

I love watching how systems of people operate. Fascinating stuff.

Over and over, what I see in U.S. history is somebody who has a real problem
that needs solved -- perhaps a gnat is flying around the house. The problem
looks really sexy on TV. Politicians can thump the table and get lots of
votes.

Then these politicians get elected and suddenly we're building industrial
flame-throwers to get rid of gnats. "But it's only for the gnats!" they say.
And it is -- for about 20 years. Then it slowly becomes a tool like any other.

Part 3 of this story is the most interesting. It's where the rest of us figure
out how we've gotten screwed and start clamoring to have something done about
it. But nothing happens.

Democracy's bug? That every generation feels like it is special, and that the
problems it is having are special. So they "have" to start heavily mucking
around with the system. Most every time, these fixes work -- until they don't.
Then we're stuck with them forever.

I don't have an answer here, just venting.

------
zorrb
Reading through these comments, I see quite a bit of ignorance. A lot along
the lines of, "Why would you ever carry cash!?" Which fortunately a lot of
cogent comment have successfully answered. Another is, "Why would you carry
that much cash it's so RISKY?"

As someone whose had to carry around five figure sums around quite a bit in
the past because of my profession (hint: it rhymes with "rambling") my far and
away, it's not even close, fear is having the money taken by cops from an
illegal search. This fear is justified because I've never been mugged or
robbed and no one I know who was in the same line of work has either. But I
know MANY people who have had funds seized by cops. ESPECIALLY in the south.
Actually the horror stories I personally know about have happened only in the
south.

Usually it's the cop seeing an out of state license. Pull you over, lies and
says you were "swerving" or refuses to give you a reason. Then forces you out
of the car, takes the money and sayonara.

~~~
PeterisP
Are you speaking about the seizure process described in the article or just
plain old theft?

~~~
zorrb
Theft under the guise of, "oh this must be drug money". I think the article
mentions the average amount taken is something like ~$8k. That's 8-10months of
legal fees.

AND IF YOU DON'T LIVE where they took it, you'd have to GO THERE to go to
court.

That's why in places like Missouri they love pulling over out of state
licenses because they know if you live in California you aren't going to be
coming back to contest their shenanigans.

------
MattyRad
I live in Reno, so with Burning Man recently I saw a disproportionate number
of traffic stops off the freeway. The interesting thing about Burning Man,
however, is that all vehicles are marked by the tell-tale dust from the Playa.
Cops can easily identify which cars should be pulled over. I've seen cops
rooting around in dust marked cars while concerned Burners watch.

I can't stress enough how important it is to know your rights [1]. Never, ever
consent to a search. Never, ever "talk" to police (insofar as to assert your
rights). They are not your friends. You are being pulled over because you are
being accused of a crime. And all too often they will use word games and
intimidation to get you to "cooperate" (forfeit your fifth amendment rights).

Even though Burners might be less likely to have large sums of money in their
car (cash money is forbidden in trading at Burning Man), suspicion of drugs is
a likely story for a stop and seizure.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpOpLvBAr8)

~~~
vhost-
I can back this person up. I lived off Pyramid Highway (Nevada 445), a main
route taken to Burning Man, and I would see cars pulled over in front of my
house by the police all the time after the event. The traffic stops usually
lasted 30 or so minutes and almost like clockwork they were searched.

Even before I was more politically minded, these stops struck me as odd.

------
CapitalistCartr
The local governments invariable claim it's not about the money; it's about
safety or some such. I want an amendment that puts all the money from fines,
seizures, etc. to the national debt. That's the closest thing to a black hole
for money I can think of. Watch them scream then. Not about the money, my ass.

~~~
chongli
No, we should pass a law barring law enforcement from seizing property in any
case until a judgment has been reached in a court of law.

~~~
scott_karana
How would you distinguish seizure of property with the _false_ justification
of probable cause, from legitimate seizure of evidence with _legitimate_
probable cause?

I assume you are not advocating that police cannot collect evidence until
_after_ a crime is proven in court.

------
lostcolony
'“9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking
for those kind of people,” said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy
sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations
director of Black Asphalt. “When money is taken from an organization, it hurts
them more than when they lose the drugs.”'

Wait, what? I was unaware that 9/11 was perpetrated by drug traffickers.

~~~
kghose
A lot of money laundering operations is related to terrorist financing. Also,
many terrorist organizations finance themselves via drug sales.

~~~
jschwartzi
Why was this voted down? It strikes me as something requiring some citations
or rebuttal, but not a simple downvote.

~~~
mindslight
Because it's brain mush, and because it's old enough to be plainly seen as
such by most people. Just like aluminum tubes, or telling (intellectual)
children that "Al Kayda" is going to blow up their beloved shopping mall.

If OP wants to take the easy route by getting his world view from common
propaganda (look at some of those other comments. "checks and balances" \-
that rich!), that's his right (assuming he's not just part of an organized
program to stifle discussion). But that doesn't mean we should respect such
drivel as legitimate discourse - mass media prevails precisely through sheer
attrition.

------
tomohawk
Near the end, they talk about how police can use psychological pressure to
keep someone at the side of the road, not telling them they can leave any time
the initial traffic stop is over. They then make 'productive' use of that
time.

Why you should never talk to police:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
lettergram
Judging from the 5 or 6 cops I know personally (neighbors and what not),
there's basically nothing you can do if they want something from you.

They will lie or provoke you into doing something, even worse, one of the cops
I know had a story about how someone said, "no, you cannot search my vehicle."
The cop then asked if he wanted to be arrested for resisting arrest, and the
guy gave in because he has no idea what his rights really are. The cop who was
telling me seemed pretty smug about it, tricking someone into searching his
car...

The point being, it's very hard not to get yourself into a pickle of the
police officer really wants you. Most officers have somewhere between 2 - 4
years of formal education, most of which is about how to trick people, not
about law. If the police officer suspects you're at fault for anything (or
even is just having a bad day and doesn't like your look) he will arrest you.

That being said, always say, "I'm not refusing, but you may not search my car
(or persons)" and don't go with them unless you are arrested. Both require
them to get a warrant, something they wont do unless they need to. If your
pulled over and asked why, always say "no." (fifth amendment right and all).

Finally, always, always, always be super nice and professional. Act innocent
and you wont make the officer angry.

~~~
vfclists
Don't you Americans feel ashamed of your country? Your country is beginning to
stink. In many respects it is worse than third world countries.

How is this different from some third world country where police stop cars to
collect bribes from drivers?

Well I'll tell you. In America the whole administration, the judiciary, the
legal profession, the government at federal,state and county level are in on
it. It seems that it succeeds basically because it is too expensive to get
justice through the courts, this means that the courts and legal profession
are in on it too. In third world countries is just the police and their
superiors who get the money, and it generally petty cash.

It looks like it is not terrorists who are going to destroy America after all.
Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and law enforcement will do it on
their own.

A justice system which only the rich can afford is not a justice system in
principle or in practice.

The funny thing is that it has been going on for decades and it looks like the
Washingon Post just noticed, as though they didn't know about it ages ago.

~~~
kordless
First off, you are using a TON of blaming statements (which are mostly ad
hominem) and are using a trolling technique to attempt poll others for
feelings. It's a nasty habit and your comments only serve to make someone
angry. I believe you are aware of your intent and only use it to illicit fear.

We still have enough liberty here that this article can run in the newspaper
freely. That is evidence enough America is far from stinky. Do we have unfair
levers of power here? Yes. Are we attempting to determine how the levers got
into a few people's control? Yes. Will we figure out how to stop them and keep
it from happening again? You bet we will.

And none of that will come to pass because of your crappy comments. It'll
happen because we are Americans and aren't going to allow our liberties to
being eroded by a bunch of fear mongering asshats. And THAT, my friends, is a
blaming statement.

~~~
angersock
Eh, their post was their opinion, and they've got some decent points. Your
accusation of _ad hominem_ is misapplied--go look it up.

The observation was made that the real damage to the US would come from within
and not without. This seems trivially easy to "prove" if you keep up with the
news and history.

The observation was made that broad swathes of government and private practice
were in league to perpetuate these issues. Such behavior is expected because
of the mechanism of action at work: the rot and the power is in the
legislative and judicial systems, so _of course_ those folks will be acting in
concert.

The observation was made that in other "corrupt" countries officers routinely
relieve travelers of excess pecuniary baggage, which appears to also be the
case in some parts of the US.

These are not _ad hominem_ propositions, nor were they presented as such.

~~~
kordless
> their post was their opinion

This is a false statement. "Your country is beginning to stink." is a blaming
statement that attempts to lay out pre-support of the opinion "In many
respects it is worse than third world countries". However, in the subsequent
context in which it is used the statement is presented as a logical conclusion
or fact. It is then followed up with another blaming statement meant to seal
the 'logic' of the opinion, "It looks like it is not terrorists who are going
to destroy America after all. Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and
law enforcement will do it on their own."

There is no proof that America will be destroyed by corruption inside
government, banks or the judicial system. There are _observations_ that we are
threatened by some individual's actions, but there are also _observations_ we
are doing something about it. The claims we will be 'destroyed' because we are
'corrupt as a third world country' are simply false. There is no evidence this
will occur and it is pure conjecture.

While I agree with you it probably started as an _opinion_ the comment, in
general, their comments consititued an irrelevant conclusion. Irrelevant
because it was full of blaming opinion from someone outside those being
blamed, and conclusion because it was presented as fact. As it turns out,
irrelevant conclusions fall into a broad of set of relevance fallacies, which
themselves are 'ad hominem' arguments. Look it up.

------
DominikR
Why doesn't your society resist? Parts of your police is now equiped like an
army on a battlefield and money can be seized without any reasoning.

And then there's NSA spying, torture and drone executions of suspected
terrorists (even US citizens) without trial.

If someone would have told me 20 years ago, that the US will turn into this, I
would have thought that this person must be insane.

Now it wouldn't even surprise me, if the US turns into a giant gulag in the
next 10 years.

Edit: I wonder how these policemen justify their actions, after all they are
going after their own people.

~~~
ejr
Because resistance is futile. The machinery of government explicitly favours
authority and that very authority was given to them willingly by the voting -
or non voting - masses. It is the authority that everyone, including the
plundered, believe they must have in order to keep them safe. Resistance takes
courage and a willingness to lose everything you care about, such as your
prideful opinion, free time or an hour of your attention.

The sacrifice is too great for the overwhelming majority of the populace
comfortable with what they have and a chronic aversion to all things
unpleasant. I've lost count of how many people I've seen change the channel
when news of war or police brutality come on.

When the effort needed to change government matches that of a retweet, we will
see change.

~~~
panarky
>> Why doesn't your society resist?

> Because resistance is futile.

Resistance is not futile. We are far bigger and stronger than they are. An
organized and determined resistance could dismantle the police state.

But the vast majority of the population is uneducated, uninformed and
unmotivated. They're unwilling to turn off TV and talk radio and participate
in their community.

And the few who are educated, informed and motivated get discouraged when
nobody joins them in their protests, when they're alone in speaking out.

Maybe it needs to get even worse before a critical mass of resistance will set
aside their trivial distractions and organize themselves.

~~~
lazyjones
> _But the vast majority of the population is uneducated, uninformed and
> unmotivated. They 're unwilling to turn off TV and talk radio and
> participate in their community._

That was always the case in past centuries (more so) and still, people
frequently rebelled against malevolent authorities.

Have we become too civilized to resist? Or are we just too concerned with our
individual well-being to sacrifice some personal safety for a common cause?

------
solutionviatech
\--------Can we solve part of this problem through a smartphone app?
-----------------

Here are my initial thoughts on how it would work, feel free to comment on
better ways to implement it / other features

1) If you get pulled over by a cop, you start up the smart phone app and place
the phone in the windshield mount (the mount should have power so the phone
battery doesn't die)

2) When the app starts, it immediately starts recording (or streaming) audio
and video

3) The app quickly connects/matches you to a real lawyer versed in your
state's laws

4) Your newly matched lawyer can listen in on the subsequent conversation
between you and the police officer. Or alternatively, the lawyer could act as
a buffer and do all the talking with the police officer.

Benefits of the app: 5) Since the police officer knows he's being recorded, he
may act nicer and more appropriately.

6) If the cop does try to "play games" such as holding the person without
arresting, then the lawyer can quickly "step in" and ask the cop if his client
is free to leave or whether he is under arrest.

Problems that I'm not sure how to solve:

7) Maybe the cop will tell the driver to step out of the car and around to the
back of the vehicle - with the motivation of getting out of earshot of the
lawyer/smartphone app.

8) Looking through a cynical lens, this app may face scrutiny by cop unions
opposed to it - in how to shut it down

~~~
javajosh
It's a good idea, but it hinges entirely on streaming at least audio, as it
hinges on getting real-time help of a lawyer. It also assumes that there are
lots of lawyers out there sitting at a computer and willing to listen to
police convos, and step in, for free.

Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business? I
don't know.

~~~
lsc
>Perhaps lawyers would want to be involved as a loss leader for new business?
I don't know.

There are a bunch of business models. I mean, you could price it like
insurance. I pay a monthly fee and you guarantee someone is there to get my
ass out of a sling if required.

Heck, you could price it like insurance, too; charge me based on perceived
risk, and raise my rates if I actually use it.

I mean, I carry liability insurance against civil suits... Maybe you could
talk me into paying for similar insurance against criminal charges?

~~~
solutionviatech
\- Great idea about pricing it like insurance and charging based on perceived
risk! I wonder if people that carry large amounts of cash around with them
sometimes (i.e. restaurateurs) would want to use the app - and they could
deduct the monthly fee as a business expense.

\- Another market would be people who may feel like they get pulled over by
the police more often than normal. In this use case, maybe the ACLU would be
willing to pay for access to the data/statistics from the phone calls.

------
covercash
Apparently in Philly the DA will seize entire homes over a $40 drug bust:
[http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-
hous...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-
seizure/index.html)

------
marquis
The New Yorker's take on this last year:
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken)

------
slowcode
I like to use cash, and I keep a tally sheet and receipts with me when I
travel, along with any withdrawal slips pertaining to the money. I can prove
to a penny where it came from, where it was spent, on what, and it will equate
to what is left.

But I get the impression that's not enough. As soon as they see cash, it's
theirs.

And the thing is, I have plenty more in the bank. So if I am stopped and any
cash or items are seized, the first thing I'm going to do is call my attorney
and go about my business until I have sued the jurisdiction, the officer(s),
and anyone else connected to the seizure back into the stone age.

I retired young after a successful career. Lots of tattoos. Gold Rolex, long
hair, under 50 - I am an unscrupulous officer's wet dream. But I am sober,
intelligent and law abiding. I never break the law and my driving record is
spotless because of it. Pull me over and you're hunting, because you didn't
see me weave.

Bring it.

And for those of you who are ready to say, "F you - you're rich", or whatever
- spare me. I am exactly the kind of citizen who will eventually bring this
kind of thing to a halt. I can afford to take it the Supreme Court. And I will
do so with a relentless determination.

The police to me are a threatening force. If I need them, I'll go ahead and
call. Otherwise, mind your own business and we'll be fine. So far in 47 years
I have never needed them. And I know to a certainty I don't need them
violating my rights.

~~~
maxxxxx
When you read the reports it becomes clear that they won't go after people
like you. they go after people who either don't know their rights or simply
cannot afford to fight back.

If you want to do something about this then help some of the people in this
situation take their case to court.

------
clarry
It is sad. Yet people like Gavin Seim and Adam Kokesh get a lot of shit for
standing up.

 _" have you seen the video where the guy just keeps repeating, 'Am I being
detained? Am I free to go?' what an asshole"_

And anyone defending those people is instantly labelled a gun freak.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Kokesh is particular is extremely unpopular in the gun community.

------
fiatmoney
There is a word for armed men who prowl highways looking for valuables to
seize.

------
loupereira
In an era of budget shortfalls and market-based solutions, the American
government is quickly becoming a for-profit enterprise at all costs.

~~~
pdkl95
It's been that way for a long time now. Just look at the giant freudian slip
_DOJ lawyers_ made during 'Jewel v. NSA' while trying to explain why the NSA
should be able to retcon the public court transcript by claiming it was
classified, ex post facto.

Apparently it was very important to keep various Snowden disclosures secret,
because:

    
    
        DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE
        SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF
        THIS COMPANY
    

(caps in original)

Company? Country? I'm going with "Freudian slip of the century"

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsea...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140813/23203228207/unsealed-
jewel-v-nsa-transcript-doj-has-nothing-contempt-american-citizens.shtml)

------
briandh
People upset by this (as I am) may be interested in EndForfeiture.com, a very
slick brochure-style site you can send to your friends.

The organization behind it is the Institute for Justice, a public interest law
firm that has performed ample pro bono litigation against civil asset
forfeiture abuse.

If you choose to donate to them (which I encourage), note that they do legal
work in other areas that you may or may not agree with, so you should take a
look at that first.

(Note: I am not affiliated with IJ, I just admire their work.)

------
lukasm
Well, I guess this is one extra reason to stay in Europe and start business
here.

~~~
kghose
It's SO much better there!

~~~
psykovsky
Where's the sarcasm tag?

------
shin_lao
I don't see what the problem is.

In France if you carry more than 10,000 € in cash, you need to make a custom
declaration.

It's also illegal to buy something for more than 3,000 € in cash.

~~~
tehwebguy
You don't see a problem with those laws?

~~~
shin_lao
Absolutely not. Why would I want to pay in cash? It's neither convenient nor
safe.

~~~
clamprecht
Are you saying because you, shin_lao, doesn't prefer cash, that it's ok for
the government to go around seizing cash from people who do prefer it? What of
the seller only accepts cash? What if the buyer (someone other than you)
prefers cash?

~~~
shin_lao
It's illegal for the seller to accept cash beyond 3,000 € (see the law above).

Important point: checks and wire transfers are free.

~~~
clamprecht
You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I've paid with cash, and I find
it convenient and safe. It's especially convenient when the seller only
accepts cash, since a non-cash transaction would be impossible. I have no
problem with France's law against cash (since I'm not a French resident).
France also doesn't have freedom of the press, and I'm ok with that.

~~~
tbrownaw
_You said cash is neither convenient nor safe. I 've paid with cash, and I
find it convenient and safe._

If it's generally known that _nobody_ carries large amounts of cash, I imagine
it might make muggings a bit less common.

It's not so much _you personally_ carrying lots of cash that's safe or unsafe,
it's what fraction of the population carries lots of cash that makes things
safe or unsafe.

~~~
DanBC
People are mugged for tiny amounts of money.

Muggers are after enough money to buy drugs, and so they don't care if it's a
few dollars.

------
hitchhiker999
I cannot believe this is happening - that is truly insane.

------
BrandonM
Want to help? I went to
[http://whoismyrepresentative.com/](http://whoismyrepresentative.com/) and
entered my ZIP code. It took me to the page of my representative and senators.
I submitted a link to the article and a message indicating that I would like
to see the law supporting Stop and Seize repealed. I said some other stuff
about being a gainfully employed citizen ashamed to call myself American due
to the encroachment on our rights.

If this makes you sick, tell your congresspeople, and tell your friends to do
the same. We do not get to have the rights we want without declaring that we
want them.

------
coldcode
All that will happen from this is that criminals will find ways to move money
without cash (like bitcoins, etc) and the only people caught will be non-
criminals or really stupid criminals. Everything evolves in reaction to
pressures.

~~~
psykovsky
They sould start impounding cars. Those are weapons.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There was a case a while back where someone was convicted of being an
accessory to a serious crime and jailed for an extended period because they
lent their car to the perp, who - inexplicably - didn't mention it was going
to be used for criminal activity.

The prosecutor argued 'No car, no crime', and the jury bought it.

To me that's like arguing 'No clothes, no crime' and jailing the board of
Walmart for selling underwear. Or 'No food, no crime' and jailing the staff of
a nearby diner.

~~~
psykovsky
Stupid, ain't it? ;)

------
runeks
> “Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine
> or who was trying to launder large amounts of money,” said Mark Overton, the
> police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task
> force in South Florida.

If that was your intention then why on earth did you allow seizures from
civilians? Seems to me that the best way to seize a million dollars from a
cocaine dealer is to arrest him if you have reasonable suspicion, and if he's
convicted, seize the money.

But of course, it's a lot easier to just take his money without being able to
prove your suspicion. :\

------
declan
Three thoughts:

* Asset forfeiture abuses by police have been going on for at least a generation. Here's an excerpt from House Judiciary testimony by an African American gardener who dared to carry $9K in cash in 1991 to buy plants at a nursery. He had it all (surprise!) confiscated by cops. The fact that it's been 23 years and the abuses are worse, not better, is telling. [https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-he...](https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/statement-rep-henry-hyde-forfeiture-reform-now-or-never) And here's a note I sent to Politech on the topic back in 1998: [http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html](http://www.politechbot.com/p-00023.html)

* Contrary to some claims in this thread, there are reasons to transport significant sums of $10K+ in cash. Contractors, tree removal companies, landscape installers, grading/excavation firms, etc. can charge that much for work and, I'm told by my SF peninsula neighbors who have had work done, often offer cash discounts. (Which means, of course, both the homeowner and the contractor would be transporting large cash amounts sequentially.)

* I suspect that governments would, to a first approximation, prefer that their own citizens engage only in traceable, trackable, non-anonymous electronic transactions with closely regulated financial firms. This is already happening: cash now represents only 14% of dollar payments by value. Though my favorite example in this area is this proposal that bubbled up inside the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; I wrote about it for Wired in 1999:

[http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121](http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/10/32121)
"The magnetic strip could visibly record when a bill was last withdrawn from
the banking system. A carry tax could be deducted from each bill upon deposit
according to how long the bill was in circulation... Systems would have to be
put in place at banks and automatic teller machines to read bills, assess the
carry tax, and stamp the bills 'current...'"

------
kohanz
This is by no means a justification for these seizures, but in reading this I
can't help but wonder in what legitimate situations one would actually _need_
to carry such large amounts of cash. Would a money-order or bank-certified
check not do the job, or would those be seizable by the police as well?

Again, I say this more in a "how can I avoid this type of situation" sense,
rather than implying that there was any wrong-doing on the part of the cash
carriers.

~~~
kghose
I share your sentiments. I'm more ambivalent about this process than I should
be, as an admirer of the checks and balances in our constitution.

I would suspect that the vast majority of such hauls is drug money laundering
related. "Normal" folks would be scared of losing such cash or having it
stolen. I know I would be petrified at the thought.

However, there are probably a few folks who don't use banks (don't trust 'em
or don't use 'em just because) and this is how they buy a house or buy a car
or go from one state to another with their possessions.

Now, here's where my ambivalence comes from: do we let the money laundering go
because a few of these are false positives? Or do we accept the false
positives because it serves the greater good because it catches or causes
attrition for money launderers?

I think electronic or check transfers are a rational solution to the problem
at hand and so folks should use that.

But I'm still ambivalent. Constitution. Checks and balances.

~~~
jjoonathan
You realize what this sounds like to someone without access to enough cash on
hand to smooth over the insanity of our banking process?

"Screw you, I've got mine."

~~~
kohanz
I certainly don't read it in that way.

Carrying that amount of cash is a high-risk venture regardless of whether
these questionable seizures are happening or not (e.g. the threat of theft).
The other methods mentioned may cost a bit, but that cost goes towards
lowering the risk of the transaction. For someone carrying 5-figures worth of
cash, how can those costs be prohibitively expensive?

~~~
timdev2
Don't you think it's a bit strange that the biggest risk to your wad of $100
bills, as you drive down the highway, is not criminal robbers, but the police?

~~~
kohanz
Of course it's strange - and wrong.

However, protecting yourself against something like this doesn't have to mean
that you think it's a reasonable and justified action. As I explained earlier,
for the same reason I generally wouldn't carry this much cash around, I don't
leave valuable items inside my locked car, even though it is illegal and
unjust for someone to break into it and steal them.

------
a3n
The United Shakedowns of America.

------
einrealist
So what is proof that the money is not linked with any crime? Does a envelope
count, sealed by a notary with a letter that explains the purpose?

------
icantthinkofone
This story is so unbelievably biased and one-sided, it confirms my suspicions
of the value of the Washington Post anymore.

Carrying $75K in cash around should raise anyone's suspicions as to the
purpose, no matter what the carrier claims. Think about it. Why would YOU
carry $75K in cash?

The obvious and well known reasons are, it's the most secure way to fund drug
and terrorist cells without leaving a trail. The Post even acknowledges that!

"There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled
powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals
... "

But not until they make their accusations and end the above sentence with:

"... and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police
departments."

Note that only a sixth of those seizures were ever challenged but the Post
claims it's only because it's too expensive to do so. They do NOT question
whether it's because it's drug or terrorist funding (and I will state that it
is).

Just unbelievable what these formerly trustworthy newspapers are churning out
nowadays.

~~~
allegory
My boss carried £40k in cash around once a month for a number of years. It was
people's pay on the way from the bank to the company. Imagine the consequences
of siezing that.

In no way should anyone assume anything. That's a bad precedence to set.

And as for me, when I sold my house a few years ago, the buyer paid cash (a
suitcase of 15,300 £20 notes). I had to take that to the bank and pay it in,
which was suprisingly trouble-free. They just counted it and credited me right
away.

~~~
nagrom
That last paragraph is fascinating! How did you react to their request to pay
cash? How did you count the money to ensure that it was all there - did you
sit there and do it when they arrived, or employ someone or did you visit the
bank together?

~~~
zorrb
It's not that crazy.

A $1000 bundle of 20's is 50 bills. Usually they're wrapped up like that.
That's only 15stacks. You'd only really have to count one of the stacks, if
you didn't trust them.

~~~
dllthomas
_" That's only 15stacks."_

I read the GP as saying 15.3k _bills_ (i.e. £306k), not £15.3k _in_ £20 bills.
In which case, that's 306 stacks.

~~~
allegory
It was £306000!

------
guard-of-terra
Now that's a Kin-Dza-Dza grade police force.

~~~
smutticus
I love old Soviet era sci-fi!

The reason you're being downvoted is because sarcasm doesn't add to the
discussion.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Sometimes it is the only method. You won't get far trying to explain that
taking money from their owner is bad. This ship has sailed.

So now the working way is sarcasm, shunning and ostracism. Making it personal
for people who invented and enacted this system.

------
rubyfan
Interesting article but only made 1/2 through because the WP mobile site is so
horrendous.

------
edw519
_He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant..._

 _They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car._

 _...was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a
minor traffic infraction..._

 _The deputy found $75,195 in a suitcase in the back seat..._

 _They were carrying $28,500 in church funds meant for the purchase of
land..._

No doubt there's injustice that needs to be addressed, but it's tough to have
much sympathy for idiots. There's simply no logical reason to travel with that
much cash. These people should feel lucky that the police, and not someone
else, took their money.

~~~
zorrb
Oh, I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the USA here. Just because, YOU,
in the 5minutes it took you to post a knee-jerk reaction can't think of ANY
reason to carry large sums of money doesn't mean it should be or IS illegal.
It's not. This is a free country and there are many reasons one might want or
need to carry cash.

This whole preposterous idea that, "Oh, you have lots of money on you MUST BE
DRUG MONEY. Let's use draconian laws, and bring in the DEA so we can
confiscate it all", is insane. And super prevalent in the south, where people
getting stopped on the highway for speeding (or "durr durr you were
swerving?") and getting their car illegally searched is all too common. Good
luck getting that money back once it's inside the beast. It's a longggg road.

~~~
spiritplumber
Mandate interest, and the road becomes a lot shorter.

