DEA legally steals $16,000 from young adult

I can't wait for the revolution. I know for a fact it's coming. You can't keep doing crazy # to the people without them bucking.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

I agree. it's time for more hardcore activism against cops, courts, bureaucrats, law makers and their ilk.
DIE, Die, Die. Get the pitchforks and end this crap once and for all.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Sean Waite, the agent in charge at the DEA's Albuquerque's office, told the Journal. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

Wait a minute... how can money be guilty? If money or any property that they are able to seize can be considered guilty... does that also mean a gun can be considered guilty of murder when it shoots someone, but not the shooter?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: blackthorne

The Justice Department stated they would no longer be carrying on this practice

Will they be returning what they stole thus far

originally posted by: proob4
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

I agree. it's time for more hardcore activism against cops, courts, bureaucrats, law makers and their ilk.
DIE, Die, Die. Get the pitchforks and end this crap once and for all.

Please don't, what we need is less government power. That can only be achieved through peaceful political activity and severe cuts to all aspects of the state.

If anyone actually wants to see improvement in our lives and a path to individual liberty, they must decline to support the expansion of government oversight and authority at all levels everywhere.

I am talking to the vast majority (though thankfully beginning to shrink) of people here on ATS. You can't solve state corruption by creating a larger more powerful state.

C'mon guys, this isn't rocket science.

If the money is guilty and people are generally assumed to be guilty as well, then regardless of what you have and how you came to own it, we will have to take precautions to protect it by doing what the real criminals do and hide it. If what we have is up for grabs, then we might as well act like criminals with our legally owned property. While we're at it, might as well be the criminals that they expect us to be.

The attitude of "I've broken no laws and have nothing to hide" will just get you taken to the cleaners, so you might as well just believe that if you do have something, then you have something to hide. Don't give anyone the opportunity to take what you have by living in the shadows, keeping your mouth shut and your assets out of sight. Once you have reached that point and adopt such a lifestyle, then you might as well engage in criminal activities too.

IMO, when law enforcement is lawless, then we are no longer obligated to obey the laws. It's then fair play to get away with what ever you can get away with. Let's just live our lives by the examples they set, seems fair to me.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

This has been going on for decades now in the US. It is not talked about and for the most part it seems like the media makes it seem like they only take money away from evil drug dealers or evil gamblers who should know better than to carry around so much cash.

Controversial Iowa asset forfeiture case highlighted on CNN

More on that story:
Poker Players Get Robbed Under Guise of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Yes. In fact, there isn’t anything illegal about carrying around large sums of cash, but it seems that Drug Interdiction Officers are trained to think that there’s something suspicious going on—that there’s likely something illegal about it. There was a large Washington Post report on this a couple of weeks before I filed this complaint, and they did a 10-minute video and they showed some parts of Drug Interdiction stops, and in one situation a guy told law enforcement that his $6,000 was from a Las Vegas trip. The officer said to him, “Good luck proving that buddy, you will burn that up in attorney’s fees before we ever give a dime back to you.”

The tactic is to find a large amount of cash…and they won’t criminally charge you if you sign a piece of paper saying that you don’t know where the cash came from. It’s giving the cops the cash in exchange for them not trying to charge you. Some people are scared and don’t want to be arrested and sign that piece of paper. Most of the time it’s smaller amounts, and almost all of them don’t result in a criminal charge.

This kind of stuff happens too often in the poker world. A large sum of cash means instantly guilty. Most seizures are under 10k, so it does not even have to be that large of a stash of cash for them to assume you are guilty.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think these forfeiture laws are actually quite old, going back hundreds of years.

The big trouble is that the War On Drugs greatly abuses them. I think they should be repealed, along with the abysmal drug prohibition. These days the cops are addicted to them because of the money they steal.

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't like this at all, they are basically punishing people who are able to save money. I wonder if it is only cash that is being seized, which is my guess, or if other assets are being seized as well.

In this economy, the police could use this as an excuse to take any extra money from poor people because, even though they could have earned or saved it, it is probably "illegal money."

They primarily take cash because of traces of drugs on it and the fact that it can easily disappear. I don't think there have been many incidents of them taking money out of a bank yet. The banking industry wants to eliminate cash, if I can suggest a conspiracy for a moment here they're trying to put LEO's in a position to confiscate all cash so that people won't use it. Then we'll have the cashless society they want.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: ColeYounger
"We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Sean Waite, the agent in charge at the DEA's Albuquerque's office, told the Journal. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

Wait a minute... how can money be guilty? If money or any property that they are able to seize can be considered guilty... does that also mean a gun can be considered guilty of murder when it shoots someone, but not the shooter?

There's a loophole in the laws that says property can be accused of a crime. Except it doesn't get any constitutional protections. It is assumed guilty, gets no defense in court, and any punishment can be applied. If you really want to be shocked about asset forfeiture it was first used by John Adams our second president and one of the men who wrote the constitution.

It was used as a way to confiscate ships from pirates when there was no legal evidence of wrongdoing. Once we got into the war on drugs the concept was brought back in order to take down some kingpins. We couldn't prove anything in court, but everyone knew what they were doing, so the solution was to just start legally taking anything they obtained with drug money, and ideally provoke them into messing up.

After we got the big kingpins though the law changed. Asset forfeiture funds stopped going to the feds and instead went to the department that made the bust. This is the reason they're so common today. If the police have a 1 million budget shortfall their officers can confiscate 1 million in cash from people to solve the issue. They also look at it as a funding source for wishlist types of items that serve little practical purpose.

The process is unconstitutional, but is well entrenched in law enforcement. It would take nothing short of a constitutional amendment banning the practice, followed by congress maintaining the political willpower to not be tough on crime. It's just not going to happen.

a reply to: Aazadan

That makes it pretty easy then, a few different studies have shown for various reasons between 75% to as high as 94% of paper currency has traces of drug contamination..unless right fresh out of the mint.
I agree the cashless thing is being pushed hard.

I am wondering out loud....

remember that new law that requires any/all private transactions which are more than $600. to be reported
on a Form 1099 or perhaps a 1099-K (3rd party transfers)

that document, on hand, would prove that the IRS is aware of the transfer of that legal tender and is not ill gotten drug monies... thus no seizure would be warrented