Guilty until proven innocent

[kallend 2,027]

Civil forfeiture. . . .

How can this pass constitutional muster?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,490]

Possibly the most telling paragraph...

"The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an “offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized cash if it returned the rest. There were also options for challenging the seizure administratively through internal CBP channels or letting the case proceed in federal court. The Kazazis opted for federal court."


Because nothing says 'we know you were involved in illicit activity and we have confidence in our case for seizing this money' like offering to split it with you if you shut up and go away


The blatantly transparent workaraound is that the criminal proceeding is against your stuff (which doesn't have any rights) instead of you (and your rights). Hence United States of America Vs An artcile consisting of 50,000 cardboard boxes more or less, each containing one pair of clacker balls.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 2,193]

Quote

How can this pass constitutional muster?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,991]

>How can this pass constitutional muster?

The way they can "get" you is under a law that makes it illegal to carry more than $10,000 in/out of the US unless you file a report with Customs beforehand. It's likely that he didn't do it, and so is in violation of that law. So they can play the "well, the fine is $57,000 for that, but if you want to get $30,000 back then we won't have to go to court" game.

[jakee 1,490]

gowlerk

Quote

How can this pass constitutional muster?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights.

It covers your right be secure against unreasonable seizure of your property. Which is why the blatantly transparent workaround shown above really shouldn't work.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,490]

billvon

>How can this pass constitutional muster?

The way they can "get" you is under a law that makes it illegal to carry more than $10,000 in/out of the US unless you file a report with Customs beforehand. It's likely that he didn't do it, and so is in violation of that law. So they can play the "well, the fine is $57,000 for that, but if you want to get $30,000 back then we won't have to go to court" game.

That information is contained within the article. He was boarding a domestic flight to an international connection. He hadn't filled out a form because he wasn't leaving the USA yet.

(They also hadn't even bothered to do that anyway. According to the article they had a deadline to present a case or return the money, the deadline's long gone and they haven't presented any case or returned any money.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

That information is contained within the article. He was boarding a domestic flight to an international connection. He hadn't filled out a form because he wasn't leaving the USA yet.

Right. I am sure they will claim that he _intended_ to leave the US and had begun his trip without a form. (Not saying they are right, just laying out what they will claim.)

[gowlerk 2,193]

Although the article does not say so, it is also required to declare cash in excess of $10,000 entering the US as well as leaving.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

Quote

How can this pass constitutional muster?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights.

That's a big part of the problem. This isn't a criminal procedure, it's civil. I honestly think that Miami Vice was in large part responsible for this starting, though I'm not saying they meant to. When this was being started we'd see news shows loaded down with clips from Miami Vice showing criminals using their ill gotten gains to protect themselves from any consequences of their crimes as they lounged about in their mansions and traveled by private jets. "We'll show them! Then the first victim I read about was a black man with a small landscaping business he ran out of his ancient pickup truck. He carryed cash for buying shrubbery. They seized the money based on the fact that he had it.

This has to be one of the most abused and downright evil policy law enforcement has used since someone took their rubber hoses away.

Edit: I wasn't really looking at the situation in this case, just the whole civil forfeiture thing. We have this group of yahoos in Southeast Oh, all LEOs but ones who don't care for much structure in how they work. Or rules, or rights or anything. They formed a group and any county that will let them work within their boundaries is assued that they won't have to pay them anything. They live strictly on forfeiture. Thrive, actually. I'm proud to say that Athens county threw them out, way too many abuses, but I think they're still going strong in surrounding counties.

[NewGuy2005 53]

Maybe this is the key:

“I began to worry that they were trying to steal the money for themselves,” he said in his court declaration."

[jakee 1,490]

Bob_Church

This has to be one of the most abused and downright evil policy law enforcement has used since someone took their rubber hoses away.

I wonder why they're so fond of it though?

The Kazazi family did not hear anything about their cash or why it was taken until more than a month after it was seized, when Customs finally sent a seizure notice to their home.
.
.
The first thing the Kazazis noticed was that the dollar amount listed was $770 less than the amount that Kazazi said he took with him. The family said that the cash was all in $100 bills, making it impossible for it to add up to $57,330.

Hottot said that these types of “errors” are common in forfeiture cases and that it is “always in the same direction” — government receipts coming up a few hundred or a few thousand dollars short of what defendants say they had.


Ah. Ok then.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

That's just how we roll here in the Buckeye State. Cash carriers beware

Just to get a dig in the 4 highest years were under Obama.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 2,193]

Quote

Just to get a dig in the 4 highest years were under Obama.

I'm pretty sure Trump is far more skilled at parting people from their money than Obama will ever be.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Bob_Church 7]

NewGuy2005

Maybe this is the key:

“I began to worry that they were trying to steal the money for themselves,” he said in his court declaration."

I find that a little confusing since, at least around here, they've made no secret of the fact that the seized stuff becomes theirs.
In fact if you have too many payments left on your car they won't seize it since the bank will come after it.

[jakee 1,490]

Bob_Church

***
Maybe this is the key:

“I began to worry that they were trying to steal the money for themselves,” he said in his court declaration."

I find that a little confusing since, at least around here, they've made no secret of the fact that the seized stuff becomes theirs.


Not at all confusing, he's talking about personal corruption, i.e. those individual customs officers taking his money under cover of authority for their own enrichment.

And since he was not given a receipt for a dollar amount at the time, and he claims the eventual receipt he was sent was shy $770 of what he was carrying, he may have a point.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Westerly 61]

Bob_Church

***

Quote

How can this pass constitutional muster?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights.

That's a big part of the problem. This isn't a criminal procedure, it's civil. It is criminal when you're the victim of a crime. The police cant just take your crap without cause for no reason whatsoever. That's illegal and it is specifically unconstitutional. Having some cash in your pocket is not and has never been probable cause for anything. There is no legal limit to how much cash you can carry on your person.

[lippy 918]

An old episode of 'Harry Potter and the half-hour lecture'. It's worth a few minutes to look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

I got nuthin

[Bob_Church 7]

lippy

An old episode of 'Harry Potter and the half-hour lecture'. It's worth a few minutes to look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Civil forfeiture is a textbook case of how ignorance of the law will not help you. I wonder how tired judges get of someone explaining to him that they can't be arrested for what they are being sentenced for because "hey, it's on the interent dude, like, our constitution and stuff. I've got a link on my phone that will show you that you're wrong."

[lippy 918]

Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't follow the gist of your post. I don't disagree that a lot of ignorance comes to play with people defending themselves based on an incorrect understanding of the law, but how does that relate to civil forfeiture?

I got nuthin

[Bob_Church 7]

lippy

Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't follow the gist of your post. I don't disagree that a lot of ignorance comes to play with people defending themselves based on an incorrect understanding of the law, but how does that relate to civil forfeiture?

There are people who don't believe that law enforcement can take your property like this. So they grow a few plants. Then you see their house, land, automobile and everything else for sale at Sheriff's auction.
It's a regular form of Revenue Enhancement in Southeast Ohio. There was a guy in Albany (that is, Village of, outside Athens OH, who had a big and very successful furniture business. He sold oak furniture to restaurants. Beautiful stuff. He also sold a few bags on the side. Or maybe he didn't. But nearly every day I walk past where his business used to be before the Sheriff's office took it. He was a somewhat successful businessman so his wife gets interviewed in the local alternative paper and she says neither of them can get over the fact that they could just seize everything they owned. Which they did.
When these show up in the court reports in the paper the defense tends to follow one of two routes. One is that they didn't know. The second is that the law can't do it, no matter what, because it's not constitutional. Both arguments carry the same amount of weight, which is zip.

[Phil1111 1,149]

How the fight over civil forfeiture lays bare the contradictions in modern conservatism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/24/how-the-fight-over-civil-forfeiture-lays-bare-the-contradictions-in-modern-conservatism/?utm_term=.c104a65080ee

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded restrictions that the Obama administration had placed on civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement officials to seize property and cash that they believe are connected to criminal activity....

This year, Thomas signaled that when the right case comes before the court, he would rule that the civil-forfeiture program is unconstitutional. When that happens, it will cut straight to a major ideological tension in conservatism today, presenting a showdown between law-and-order champions and small-government principles. It will also highlight “police exceptionalism,” an inconsistency on both sides of the political aisle between their beliefs about the exercise of state power and their favored approach to constitutional interpretation.

[jakee 1,490]

Bob_Church

There are people who don't believe that law enforcement can take your property like this. So they grow a few plants. Then you see their house, land, automobile and everything else for sale at Sheriff's auction.

But you get that this thread is about the government taking money from people who didn't grow any plants, right? People against whom the government has absolutely no evidence they grew plants or did anything else illicit that could be used to make a court case against the person... but they still took the money.

It's fundamentally different to confiscating the property of someone who was convicted in court of using that property to grow or sell drugs.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 1,149]

jakee

***
There are people who don't believe that law enforcement can take your property like this. So they grow a few plants. Then you see their house, land, automobile and everything else for sale at Sheriff's auction.

But you get that this thread is about the government taking money from people who didn't grow any plants, right? People against whom the government has absolutely no evidence they grew plants or did anything else illicit that could be used to make a court case against the person... but they still took the money.

It's fundamentally different to confiscating the property of someone who was convicted in court of using that property to grow or sell drugs.

The precedent of this in US law began with the forfeiture of pirate(privateering) ships. Actions undertaken without the ship owners knowledge.

[TriGirl 318]

gowlerk

Although the article does not say so, it is also required to declare cash in excess of $10,000 entering the US as well as leaving.

Just to be clear, are you posting this just as a side note?

What's interesting about the U.S. border control is that we have no requirement to "check out" when leaving the country; only "check in" at passport control when entering. This is one contributor to the ease of overstaying a visa. Some other countries you can't leave the country unless you show that you're up to date on your residency/visit requirements. If your visa expires and you haven't departed, your name pops up on a list and they come looking for you.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[dmcoco84 5]

gowlerk

I could be wrong, but I don't think the US Constitution covers property rights.

That's a Hall of Fame post right there! -- Been giving me asthma attacks for days!
.