How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

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/

by rl3 • 11 years ago

602 432 11 years ago

washingtonpost.com

masterleep• 11 years ago

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

superuser2• 11 years ago

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_...

ekianjo3• 11 years ago

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.

hippich3• 11 years ago

race-card popular lately, but civil forfeiture is a problem here. More race you bring - less efficient you get with fighting real issue at hands. If you do little research - people of all races and sexes were hurt by that, and local/federal police benefitted from it.

ndespres2• 11 years ago

Please don't do a dismissive handwave over what's really an important element to this story. That the victim is a person of color is absolutely relevant to this story; it demonstrates a bias on behalf of the DEA agent, or perhaps simply a cynicism: they know what they can get away with in the eyes of the public.

Of COURSE race is an important element of how law enforcement interacts with citizens. Race is part of these issues. The very term "race card" is offensive and marginalizing, even if you didn't mean it that way.

spacemanmatt11• 11 years ago

You say it's not about race, but let me point you to the story of a Texas freelance racist who was supported by many racist cops and citizens for a long time. I have lived in Texas all my life, and he is a household name among people who care about civil rights.

I don't mention this to say civil forfeiture is necessarily racist, as much as to point out that it is a tool entirely too attractive to them. And they are using it as much as they can, here.

http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/coleman_convicted.ht...

Zikes• 11 years ago

The important bit:

The agent found Rivers's cash, still in a bank envelope.

Yeah, the police have a severe race issue, but civil asset forfeiture is being used against anybody that has anything worth taking.

waterlesscloud• 11 years ago

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.

MCRed7• 11 years ago

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".

ekianjo3• 11 years ago

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that the officials crossed the limits in basically everything in case what's reported is completely factual.

And honestly, having cash in an envelope should be something completely normal no matter where you are. In Japan having tons of cash on you is not frown upon by anyone, because cash is used for everything and accepted everywhere even where cards aren't (and people are not afraid of being robbed).

rhino3697• 11 years ago

The can try to question you all they want, but you don't have to answer. It isn't wrong for the cop to ask and it isn't wrong for you to not answer.

simoncion7• 11 years ago

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.

MCRed7• 11 years ago

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!

simoncion7• 11 years ago

...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?

mr_luc• 11 years ago

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.

MCRed7• 11 years ago

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

simoncion7• 11 years ago

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?

anigbrowl6• 11 years ago

Then you['re not trying. Read a legal journal, you'll see plenty of legitimate uses documented in court reports. I have no problem with it when agents seize cash that's found along with a pile of drugs or illegal weapons (a common enough occurrence in any major port city), but those are cases where you have very obvious cause to suspect criminal activity even if the criminals have fled.

DigitalSea• 11 years ago

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...

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.

hinkley3• 11 years ago

I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs"

Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing access for approved uses (like say legal fees) would achieve the same results without pissing all over the sixth amendment.

minot• 11 years ago

Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate?

Where do we draw the line?

harryh3• 11 years ago

A bank robber should be able to use the money they steal to defend themselves?

j422• 11 years ago

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...)

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...

danieltillett• 11 years ago

I see a future in politics for you.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

> 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.

MCRed7• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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

jMyles5• 11 years ago

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

a3n9• 11 years ago

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.

Vote 3rd party, it's essentially "none of the above."

MCRed7• 11 years ago

When I vote, I vote third party, believe me.

imroot• 11 years ago

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.

itistoday217• 11 years ago

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

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.

thedufer2• 11 years ago

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.

zaroth4• 11 years ago

You could imagine reading it this way: DEA agents confronted the only black man in the train car and demanded he open his bags, shook him down, and stole his cash. In a brazen theft which DEA agents later claimed was legal under the veil of "civil forfeiture" the state prosecutor has refused to press charges, and the judge on the case has refused to provide relief for the plaintiff...

I hope we continue to see a relentless stream of articles highlighting these cases one after another until finally the outcry builds loud enough for something substantive to be done at the federal level. It's to the point where we need an 'Audit the Fed' level response to scrutinize every dollar seized, and victims should be compensated in full, with interest.

I wonder how the story would have gone differently if the man had refused to consent to the search. Probably not much better, heck, that would probably be considered 'evidence' against his money.

I also wonder what the burden of proof is for showing the source of the funds. If you walk into court with bank statements and W-2s, why is it so hard to get the money back? Judges are obstructing this for some reason, and I think that's an angle to the story we haven't seen much reported.

sdoering2• 11 years ago

Well in medieval times we called these people "robber knights" [1].

Good to see, that the US are capable of learning from history by importing great achievements and ideas of former times from the old world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron

Houshalter2• 11 years ago

George Orwell wrote a fantastic essay on this that is worth reading:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120106011107/http://www.k-1.co...

juliangregorian• 11 years ago

Double-plus ungood.

evanpw• 11 years ago

I agree with your conclusion, but this is an example of the "worst argument in the world": http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

giltleaf• 11 years ago

This is a good point and I'm struggling to grasp how deep this article indicates this problem goes. I just finished reading Emergency by Neil Strauss and this just motivates me more and more.

copsarebastards• 11 years ago

It's not just theft, it's conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

mikeash5• 11 years ago

There's a great deal of reluctance in the media to use anything but official terms for these things. For a widespread recent example, see the constant usage of "enhanced interrogation" and a complete absence of the word "torture" except when repeating its usage by someone else.

nyolfen• 11 years ago

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

lol maybe if you're white

welcome to the logic that everyone has had to operate under

Camillo• 11 years ago

AFAIK, before the war on drugs, civil forfeiture had seen significant use during Prohibition, against cars used to transport contraband. Which means most of the targets would have been white bootleggers.

But I'm being pedantic. I do agree with the spirit of your comment - it is vital that we immediately divide along race lines, lest any actual change take place.

guelo2• 11 years ago

Everybody in Andy Grifith's idyllic town was white. Meanwhile half the country lived under legally sanctioned apartheid.

simoncion7• 11 years ago

Hey. Do you have the expertise needed to weigh in on my question? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9536840 Thanks!

forrestthewoods2• 11 years ago

Fuck that. Even criminals deserve fair legal council. And to not be treated like filthy animals.

Shame on you.

Edit: downvotes deserved. I read it several times and still interpreted the first paragraph to be in support of taking money because it denied full legal access. My brain flipped a word into "good". Despite being a public defender no less! Leaving comment anyways because that seems like the honest thing to do. Sorry.

mattlutze• 11 years ago

OP was a public defender.

vidarh3• 11 years ago

It would seem you might want to read the comment you replied to again.

hackercurious• 11 years ago

The State of New Mexico has just banned asset forfeiture.

HB 560, introduced by New Mexico Rep. Zachary Cook and passed unanimously in the legislature, replaces civil asset forfeiture with criminal forfeiture, which requires a conviction of a person as a prerequisite to losing property tied to a crime. The new law means that New Mexico now has the strongest protections against wrongful asset seizures in the country.

Link to the bill:

http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pd...

fsck--off• 11 years ago

The WaPo article (the submission) mentions this bill, but finishes:

"But New Mexico's law only affects state law enforcement officials. As a result, in New Mexico — and everywhere else, for that matter — DEA agents will be able to board your train, ask you where you're going and take all your cash if they don't like your story, all without ever charging you with a crime."

justthistime_• 11 years ago

Doesn't this just mean that the will rob you _and_ additionally charge you with some made-up crime and let you rot in jail until you sign the plea deal?

gadders2• 11 years ago

There is a good novelisation of this process in the Dean Koontz book Dark Rivers of the Heart. Worth a read.

vfclists• 11 years ago

How many commenters here have a deep personal commitment to press their representatives to change this law?

Is this all jaw-jaw and no action?

spacemanmatt11• 11 years ago

Are you really proposing they represent me?

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil...

dragontamer• 11 years ago

    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.

Erm... a little bit of revisionist history there.

You do realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was under watch by FBI Plants his entire public life, and warrantlessly spied upon under COINTELPRO?

You do realize that Fred Hampton was drugged by an FBI Plant, before 40+ Police raided his home and shot him dead with automatic weapons as he slept? (also part of COINTELPRO program)

The problems of policing are the same problems that have occurred for years. There were _always_ good cops who did their business correctly, there have _always_ been bad cops who have abused the system. As for the system... obviously it is constantly under flux, but I do think we're making improvements over the long run.

I argue that today's system is superior to the 1950s. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to offer the first blow in a debate here and now. But mind you, good luck beating out COINTELPRO... which was not only warrantless spying on innocent Americans... but also was involved in direct assassinations in broad daylight.

Its as if people have _completely_ forgotten about 1950s history. Red Scare? COINTELPRO? Civil Rights? Black Panthers getting assassinated by police? Lynching in the streets? McCarthyism? House Un-American Activities Committee? The Office of Censorship?

These American institutions were shut down as the civil rights movement gained steam in the 1960s.

Good gosh people. Life is better today. Not perfect... but better by all measurements. Learn some history, and stop pretending that the 1950s were a peaceful time. In the 1950s, you'd lose your job if

vijayr• 11 years ago

With some states banning civil forfeiture and many states legalizing marijuana etc, there still seems to be some tiny hope. On the whole though, yeah, it does seem bad.

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

Why is this? I mean, are the police forces so (money) broke that they've needed to make up the difference by becoming this way? Or are they truly corrupt (I find this unlikely)?

dublinben• 11 years ago

Law enforcement isn't entirely corrupt, it is just fulfilling its purpose, i.e. to protect the interests of the powerful.

Shivetya• 11 years ago

when government agencies can bypass courts and assign fines, not offer jury trials, what safety does the common man have?

Civil forfeiture is a major problem but the abuse of using administrative law judges (ALJs) is becoming a big one as well.

jrs2353• 11 years ago

I can't recall the where I heard this before but I once heard that drug dealers purchase and wear expensive gold necklaces because if/when they get busted and booked, cash can [more easily] be confiscated (forfeited) by the police and assumed to be "dirty" drug money while gold necklaces need to be inventoried and kept safe as personal belongings. Then the dealer can get bail money from a friend with them knowing they can go and pawn the necklace to obtain cash.

rebootthesystem• 11 years ago

What's happened to our country is the equivalent of "death by a thousand cuts". I place blame on having devolved into a system where we have professional politicians and voters who are either apathetic, under-informed or both.

jrs2353• 11 years ago

Here's another example of how dreadful civil forfeiture is:

https://mises.org/blog/war-cash-destroys-small-entrepreneur

VieElm• 11 years ago

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

URSpider94• 11 years ago

Oh it has been, many many times. I can't explain the jurisprudence behind it, but this is nothing new.

MCRed7• 11 years ago

It has been, but it lost. I don't remember the case offhand though.

That it lost is a big part of the problem-- that Judges are not throwing these cases out of court every time they see a warrant to steal money-- is a problem.

remarkEon• 11 years ago

Kaley v. United States[1]

"Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged."

Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too.

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-464_7mi8.pdf

sukilot8• 11 years ago

That quote doesn't justify seizure. Certainly not permsne t seizure with no trial.

Pyxl101• 11 years ago

What about someone who has not been indicted? The man in the article was not indicted with a crime.

It seems to me that any asset seizure should be at most tied to a fair trial. Once an asset seizure has taken place, the clocks starts ticking on "speedy trial" as if the defendant himself had been arrested. If the defendant isn't convicted within a reasonable time, the assets must be returned, with a burden on the government to show that the assets were the proceeds of a crime.

rhino3697• 11 years ago

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.

simoncion7• 11 years ago

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 the time and/or money cost of fighting the theft is more than the value of the money stolen? Court isn't cheap. Court is appallingly expensive.

NOTE: I am absolutely not making the claim that there has never been an instance of a right and just asset forfeiture case.

Meekro• 11 years ago

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

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.

anigbrowl6• 11 years ago

You're about people not claiming it in some some situations - for example, if cops burst into a warehouse and find a briefcase full of cocaine and a briefcase full of cash, it's reasonable to guess that one was being traded for the other. In this case it's also appropriate that the cash be charged, as in 'US vs $1 million dollars,' because the erstwhile traders haven't stuck around to be arrested.

But it makes absolutely no sense to apply those methods to cash confiscated from individuals not charged with a crime. Having cash isn't a criminal offense, even while black - although as a practical rather than a moral matter, this young man would have been smarter to open an account with a large national bank or get a cashier's check to open an account in LA rather than carrying the cash around.

rgbrenner3• 11 years ago

It has been challenged.. there's a case history on this page: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forfeiture

mark-r• 11 years ago

I've never understood how this could possibly be held constitutional. It's just so at odds with everything I've ever believed about our justice system. The abuses seem to get worse every day, and it just depresses me.

andrewchambers• 11 years ago

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

socceroos• 11 years ago

This. And while the USA purports to be the leaders in freedom, we see similar erosion of freedom and liberty in other Socialist/Democratic societies like Australia, UK and France.

The UK seems especially bad to me at the moment. The level of open surveillance that they practice on their citizens is astonishing.

People are only just starting to cotton on to this, but the Five Eyes are getting around the restrictions of not openly monitoring all their citizens by giving access to their surveillance systems to another member of the five and then just getting it handed straight back.

"Oh no, your honour, we don't monitor all our citizens."

adventured6• 11 years ago

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.

sukilot8• 11 years ago

Civil forfeiture abuse and DEA criminality has been in the news for over a decade. Though it may be getting more attention now.

tsotha6• 11 years ago

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.

sukilot8• 11 years ago

It is almost like America is made up of people with different opinions and circumstances.

boomlinde• 11 years ago

I believe that the comment was referring specifically to "Americans [that] allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty", and I'm not sure how saying that there are other people in America is a relevant response.

The practice of civil forfeiture is being "allowed" by not doing anything about it or by giving it legitimacy by accepting it as something that should be reformed politically rather than treating it as a criminal violation of constitutional rights. Just because you get worked up about it for 15 minutes when reading an article about the injustice it causes doesn't mean that you aren't allowing it. Most people will unfortunately not even have a strong opinion about it until it happens to them or someone close to them.

spacefight• 11 years ago

a world leader in personal liberty

[Citation needed]

Thanks.

thaumasiotes2• 11 years ago

"world leader" is a relative standard, not an absolute one.

aftbit• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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

"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."

sukilot8• 11 years ago

The law is rather clear, if dismal: privacy is not a right, only surprise violations of privacy are illegal. Once the government starts abusing people enough , it is no longer an expectation of privacy. See also the prohibition against "unusual" punishment.

nekopa2• 11 years ago

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

ekianjo3• 11 years ago

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

nekopa2• 11 years ago

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.

steve19• 11 years ago

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)

woah• 11 years ago

They stole it, and they will not give it back. If someone is mugged on your block, is the first thing you do to sit there and wonder whether they are completely free of sin?

daeken• 11 years ago

... 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.

koube• 11 years ago

I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system.

In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.

mikeash5• 11 years ago

The idea that we should temper our outrage at government misbehavior based on how much the target seemed to deserve it is an unbelievably dangerous one.

We should be just as outraged when the government violates the rights of a total scumbag as we are when they violate the rights of an upstanding citizen. To do anything less is to make a total lie of the idea that we have any rights at all.

Imagine if the government censored a movie and the response was, well, before we get all outraged at this blatant violation of freedom of speech, what if the movie was about really bad stuff? Well, there's no point in "freedom of speech" if it only protects the things everybody likes.

jmstout• 11 years ago

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

tempestn• 11 years ago

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

dankohn13• 11 years ago

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• 11 years ago

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

a3n9• 11 years ago

Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."

dankohn13• 11 years ago

Civil forfeiture appears to be one of the few issues that does not have a clear partisan breakdown. I would suggest the biggest issue is inertia, and raising awareness that change needs to occur. Here's a good background: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/20/7860363/equitable-sharing-polic...

marze• 11 years ago

There is a lot more than simply voting that a person living in a democracy can do to improve things.

MisterWalter• 11 years ago

You help built momentum for a proper electoral system instead of the garbage we have now. I blows my mind that after centuries we still have something as idiotic as the electoral college, and all the imbalance it brings, in our nation.

Frondo18• 11 years ago

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.

spacemanmatt11• 11 years ago

You simply vote for the lesser of the two evils. And you do it every time.

Animats• 11 years ago

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... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...

jMyles5• 11 years ago

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

AwesomeGriffin• 11 years ago

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.

adventured6• 11 years ago

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

visarga2• 11 years ago

a mostly still intact and strong property rights system

The practice of civil forfeiture on people who can't defend legally, like this guy, sure doesn't indicate that.

Maybe for the HSBC guys who laundered $378.4 billion over several years there will be a small fine, their profit for a few months. But no bank was forfeited. No board members were sent to jail for it. It seems property rights are solid, if you are rich.

xroche• 11 years ago

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

Yes, because corruption has been legalized through corruption.

You can, as a rich person, or an enterprise, legally bride politicians so that they can pass laws for your own profit.

"low crime, low corruption".

Also remember that "no crime" has been committed in the 2008 financial crisis.

vidarh3• 11 years ago

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.

pjc502• 11 years ago

mostly still intact and strong property rights system

The title system is weak and outdated, and the mass fraud of "robosigning" (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/false-affidavits-fore...) has not been adequately addressed.

realusername• 11 years ago

This is the perception of corruption, not the actual corruption. When it comes to the political system, the US is much more corrupt than most European countries. At least in France (since it's your example) you can't legally bribe politicians, it is not enforced a lot but at least it's illegal. In the US, financing of parties (so bribery) is the norm for the presidential election. And at least, minor parties have a representation in France, so there is a hope that the system can still change, in the US, since there is no way to have a representation of the small parties by design, only a revolution can make things change.

ploxiln3• 11 years ago

I'm a US citizen who is very unhappy about "civil forfeiture", about mass surveillance, etc. But the reality is that most people in the US are not directly affected. I haven't really been affected, and I don't personally know anyone who has been. (yeah yeah it helps that I'm white.) Most US citizens who are aware of these things, like me, are very unhappy about them. But most people are not really aware, and one reason for that is they haven't been personally affected.

Things in the US are not nearly as bad as in third world countries. They're bad, they're serious, but third world (or whatever you want to call Russia and China) problems are really in a league of their own. Dubai is in a different league than NYC / SF.

In the US, you can talk about it, you can get a lawyer, you can have newspaper articles written. Many third world countries - nope. There may be a couple of bloggers but they tend to get arrested.

Again, I'm not saying these things in the US are OK. I'm just saying it's unrealistic to say Manhattan is like Dubai, or NSA is like Chinese internet monitors/hackers. Really - not even close.

vacri2• 11 years ago

In the US... you can get a lawyer

There are lawyers in this thread that claim cases where civil forfeiture is done to prevent the individual getting a lawyer.

swombat2• 11 years ago

In the US, you can talk about it, you can get a lawyer, you can have newspaper articles written.

And is this helping Joseph Rivers, a victim of shameless organised theft and institutional racism?

The "most people are unaffected" argument, which gets trotted out a lot, has a strong reek of the Martin Niemøller idea: ( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 )

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Speak out, god damn it, if you have an ounce of freedom left in your blood! How can you sit idly by and make excuses and diminish the problem while your fellow man is being trampled by a ruling class of armoured thugs and liars? Is this what America was built on? That's not what you claim in your movies.

If you're making excuses for how this sort of despicable crap is "not that big a problem", you need to take a good, long look in the mirror and realise that you're currently part of the problem.

Every time an innocent has his rights trampled in this way, it is all of humanity that suffers. I am incensed on this person's behalf, and shocked and disappointed that this person's compatriots take it so lightly.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

> In the US, you can talk about it, you can get a lawyer

The problem is, you must be able to afford a lawyer. If the legal process of defending oneself is only available to the rich, then it largely does no exist for the general population.

shit_parade23• 11 years ago

More people rot in American jails than any other country.

America admits to torture and does nothing.

America has a kill list that only the executive presides over and keeps secret.

We've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the last decade and displaced millions.

And yet here is a presumptuous America ready to claim moral superiority over Russians and Chinese. A horrific display of Orwellian doublethink.

gambiting• 11 years ago

Seriously, 99% of these "outrageous" things that are happening in US now were also a thing 30-40 years ago in communist Poland and my parents(and their parents) are very well aware of these dangers - but Americans have never experienced it so they are completely oblivious to what is happening with their country. When I was a kid I always wanted to go to America - now I would pay money to not have to go there, thank you very much.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

Same here, from a Russian citizen.

greendata2• 11 years ago

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_queue4• 11 years ago

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

greendata2• 11 years ago

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.

bcook8• 11 years ago

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.

crystaln• 11 years ago

Why are you asking this question? The answer is none of your business. One should be able to travel with as much cash as one chooses.

bcook8• 11 years ago

My point was; if you carry cash in large amounts and lose it, then you did not prepare. Carrying around your life savings in cash is a very bad decision, because _anyone_ can take it and you have very little recourse.

I ask because there are a few ways to avoid this particular situation; fix government overreach or stop carrying your life savings in cash. Doing both seems safest, but if we can only do one, then itis obvious which is easiest.

anigbrowl6• 11 years ago

Because what's right and what's sensible are two different things. Bear in mind that you could also get robbed the old-fashioned way - if you reach into your envelope full of money to withdraw any cash there's a small but non-zero possibility that someone will notice and get the idea to take it for themselves.

This is why people used to carry traveler's checks before plastic became ubiquitous - people know that carrying a bunch of cash as a tourist in an unfamiliar place is unwise.

a3n9• 11 years ago

Who do you make it out to, and when?

bcook8• 11 years ago

I woud just keep it in the bank.

Was he just going to go find someone and give them 16k for a music video company? 16k in cash just makes very little sense to me.

anigbrowl6• 11 years ago

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

bcook8• 11 years ago

If someone wants 16k, they can wait the 30min it takes me to go to the bank and get a cashiers check.

aliakhtar• 11 years ago

Yes, or why withdraw it in cash at all? It could be kept in the bank and a debit card used to withdraw it.

sukilot8• 11 years ago

Then the govt can seize it directly from the bank because your cousin has a phonetically similar last name to someone who attended the same church as a suspected terrorist

sumedh• 11 years ago

or why withdraw it in cash at all?

Its my money, I can do whatever I want.

MrBlue• 11 years ago

Solution: bitcoin.

MichaelGG• 11 years ago

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

patrickaljord3• 11 years ago

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

jpindar• 11 years ago

When the cops pull someone over they have no way of knowing whether the person owns any bitcoin.

a3n9• 11 years ago

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

Thugs.

dba7dba7• 11 years ago

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.

sukilot8• 11 years ago

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

iribe• 11 years ago

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

steven2012• 11 years ago

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.

ubersync• 11 years ago

Wouldn't happen with bitcoins.

qrmn• 11 years ago

Did happen with the Silk Road bitcoins, 30K BTC of which were auctioned off before the trial.

anigbrowl6• 11 years ago

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

exo762• 11 years ago

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

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

meric2• 11 years ago

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.

spacemanmatt11• 11 years ago

That's how parallel construction works.

sukilot8• 11 years ago

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.

visarga2• 11 years ago

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.

andrewstuart• 11 years ago

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

Qantourisc• 11 years ago

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.

mindo2• 11 years ago

Personaly the more I read the less I'm interested to ever go to US. I admit, it's partly because of gun control (absence of it), police burtality and twisted laws, but at the same time I don't even know a single place I would to visit in US...

yc10102• 11 years ago

I have traveled thru' most of the lower 48 states on several occasions, and have to say these were the most memorable trips of my life (I am from Ireland). I have been to all of Europe + some of middle east & far east & latin america, but the US does stand out when I look back with great food, nice people, and amazing wide open spaces and scenery and never got in trouble with law, tho I can imagine it happening (for example: I was constantly warned bye people to stay under speed limit , while in Ireland it is more of a guideline!), since socially the US is a tinderbox about to explode, which is obvious if you ever endup in a wrong part of any town.

As for places to visit, where to start! Grand Canyon, White Sands, Las Vegas, LA, Appalachian Trail, Space Coast, Yosemite, San Francisco, Oregon, Savannah, DC, Key West, Texas.... shit the list goes on... now that I think of it the scale of the country and being able to drive everywhere is simply breathtaking, I have traveled thru more of the US than most Americans I spoke to and to be honest yee guys have a great country populated by mostly friendly and nice people.

Yes I realize there must be exceptions, but I never got into any trouble travelling the breath and length of the US, and would recommend it to anyone, hell I be back in a few months for more :)

maze-le2• 11 years ago

I can tell you, there are a lot of people that 'feel the same'. I know of people even avoiding business-trips to the US (more because of invasive TSA-practices, and seized laptops and hard drives, than civil asset forfeiture).

wil421• 11 years ago

Don't believe the hype. I've been searched more times on busses in Costa Rica and Nicaragua than I have ever been searched in the U.S.

Lived in the U.S. for 29 years and only been patted down or searched by police a handful of times while entering a Govt building or a Concert.

I agree issues need to be addressed but it's not a police state. The media likes to portray it differently.

father_of_two• 11 years ago

Ditto. We have been hearing so many negative things about the US that it really scares even to think going there, being it as a tourist, on business, whatever.

strictnein2• 11 years ago

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 [1] http://www.nps.gov/grca/index.htm

Zigurd4• 11 years ago

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.

kowdermeister• 11 years ago

I felt the same, then I reassured myself that I'm more exposed to these news, because simply they are outrageous thus they go viral.

No wonder 100 million tweets don't go viral featuring content like "I waked the dog again" or "Ouch, my nail broke".

cbsmith6• 11 years ago

"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".

task_queue4• 11 years ago

When is it ever not nice to have $38m kicking around that isn't pre-allocated and can be used for whatever?

cbsmith6• 11 years ago

Unlike with local seizures, it can't be used for whatever.

tsotha6• 11 years ago

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.

cbsmith6• 11 years ago

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.

random_rr• 11 years ago

Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".

Any business model that generates $38M/3 months ($152M/yr) could truthfully and emphatically be described as "lucrative." I don't think that's a fair argument.

cbsmith6• 11 years ago

Any business model that generates $38M/3 months ($152M/yr) could truthfully and emphatically be described as "lucrative."

No, a business model that generates and $38M of profits in 3 months would likely be described as "lucrative". A business model that generates $38M of revenue with a cost of revenue that is more than an order of magnitude larger is anything but "lucrative".

jMyles5• 11 years ago

This is money that, absent some form of corruption, benefits exactly no one,

What does this even mean? Money gets spend by humans on things that humans want. How can you say it benefits exactly no one? Clearly it benefits the humans who stole it.

cbsmith6• 11 years ago

Money gets spend by humans on things that humans want.

Sometimes it gets spent on things that humans don't want.

How can you say it benefits exactly no one?

I meant no one at the DEA.

Clearly it benefits the humans who stole it.

Umm... it isn't stolen, and no, it doesn't "clearly" benefit the people who executed the seizure. I doubt those guys see any upside other than perhaps keeping their jobs.

weitzj• 11 years ago

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

mindo2• 11 years ago

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!

einrealist• 11 years ago

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

vacri2• 11 years ago

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?

bakhy• 11 years ago

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.

mirimir• 11 years ago

"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

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

yc10102• 11 years ago

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.

winter_blue• 11 years ago

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.)

gadders2• 11 years ago

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

petjuh• 11 years ago

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.

jlebrech• 11 years ago

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

it's day light robbery.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

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?

senorito• 11 years ago

German citizen here.

I wouldn't even consider going on vacation there anymore.

stefantalpalaru• 11 years ago

But it's not the same America I've gotten to know from the movies of the 60s-80s.

It never was. You just grew up and now you're able to see past the propaganda.

JustSomeNobody3• 11 years ago

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.

bluejellybean• 11 years ago

This is very true. The propaganda filter is gone now.

Now we steal their money.

Subtle comment but it's true. Most white, affluent citizens don't ever run into these types of police state problems. In a sense, we are no different than leap_ahead in that we are finally seeing what the poor black community has had to experience for generations.

It's scary for sure but the zeitgeist seems to be shifting. I have high hopes of the future but then again maybe I'm just overly optimistic.

humanrebar• 11 years ago

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.

astazangasta• 11 years ago

I think this is true to some extent (corruption of this sort has always existed), but it is getting worse. More inequality, more corrupt legislatures, more transparent moves to aid the powerful.

Reagan raised taxes when he had to. His scions stoutly refuse in his name. Nixon created the EPA. It is definitely worse now. The right is more right; the left is more right.

Amezarak• 11 years ago

These things happen, but they are incredibly unlikely to happen to you. They're trumpeted in the media and discussed on HN because they are so outrageous to our sensibilities, not because they are common, everyday occurrences. They're very rare in a country of 300 million - but still too common on the grounds they should never happen.

In reality, you would be much better off and safer visiting the US now than you would have been in the past - especially the 60s and 80s.

marcosdumay• 11 years ago

Brazilian citizen here.

Do you realize that the news report thing out of proportion, right?

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

Of course. But the thing is, they actually reported what really happened.

Conversely, do you realize this sort of things shouldn't be really happening in what claims to be the most advanced and civilized country on this planet? I'm not hearing of this crap happening in central Europe for instance. You can expect these things from some forgotten African country, but not really from one of the so called first-world countries.

Really, those government agents should have had access to sufficient information to determine if those 160000 dollars had a legitimate origin and a legitimate objective. Where's the due process please? For many people this sum could represent several years of savings. The government can't just take it for no reason.

Perhaps this poor black guy should consider emigration from the US. He could move to Europe. I'm sure if he was ready to launch a startup he should be able to land a good job there, then get rid of the US passport a few years later.

norea-armozel• 11 years ago

It's always been a part of the American mindset. Look at how Prohibition began to see the connections between the various religious groups and the current groups calling for stricter drug laws. Such groups just have no concept of the social and biological causes of drug abuse. And they would rather punish society at large for what amounts to an illness. I guess it's easier to be tough on drugs/crime/etc than work towards a real solution.

Dirlewanger• 11 years ago

Here's some advice: stop reading/believing everything you read on the Internet/see in movies and come over for a visit. Distorting your perceptions with solely sensationalist articles (though not saying this one is)/pop culture only does yourself a disservice.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

Maybe some day but not today. Today I'm not comfortable with the mere idea.

What if some patent troll learns I'm going for a visit to the US? What if they secretly tell the police to arrest me at the airport and then sue me over some dumb patents?

What if somebody makes a joke on the Internet and then I'm detained at the airport and interrogated whether I have fought in the Ukraine?

What if they learn I have some Muslim friends and decide to question me if I knew of any bombing plans? What if they send me to one of their secret prisons to beat out my consent to spy on my friends?

You see my problem?

worklogin• 11 years ago

Likewise, I'd never go to Russia, because unlike in the US, I might get swept up and accused of being a spy, or have my hotel room turned over when they use hidden cameras to determine I'm out of the room.

Another example would be to see how long someone could shout obscenities at Putin in front of the Kremlin without getting thrown in the back of a truck. In the US, we have the freedom of press to put out articles like this.

I'm sure the everyday life of a Russian isn't totally miserable, and the US has its major issues, but I can't think of a single civil-rights issue where Russia is a leader.

leap_ahead10• 11 years ago

> Another example would be to see how long someone could shout obscenities at Putin in front of the Kremlin without getting thrown in the back of a truck. In the US, we have the freedom of press to put out articles like this.

You are correct. US rates better on the freedom of press. The only problem, the articles like this, do they have any power to change things or is it just talk and talk and nothing gets changed?

> I'm sure the everyday life of a Russian isn't totally miserable, and the US has its major issues, but I can't think of a single civil-rights issue where Russia is a leader.

We do have free medical service available to everyone and also free higher education. They're not as good as they once were (sometimes terrible) but they are available to everyone.

I'd call these basic human rights, access to medical help and access to education.

spacemanmatt11• 11 years ago

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

jMyles5• 11 years ago

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

TheCondor• 11 years ago

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

With close to zero interest at this point

stegosaurus• 11 years ago

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.

rayiner2• 11 years ago

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.

seanmcdirmid• 11 years ago

Theft has a very specific definition:

noun 1. the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another.

So to claim X is theft, you are claiming that it is wrongful; i.e. evil.

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

Somehow people seem to be willing to twist and distort basic, concrete, obvious terms to push and reinforce their ideology.

rayiner2• 11 years ago

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.

matt_morgan• 11 years ago

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

outworlder• 11 years ago

From the article:

The practice has proven to be controversial.

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

jrs2353• 11 years ago

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

datamingle• 11 years ago

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

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

Related Stories