State police swiping motorist debit, prepaid cards to seize money.

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: DeathSlayer

This is only for people carrying large sums of cash on hand.

If you are a law abiding innocent civilian then you will not have your cash stolen from you.

Again this is for people who are pulled over, aroused the cops suspicion, and they find cash in your hands upon searching your vehicle.

No, this is for people who they want to see what you've got in your bank account. It goes past 'how much money is in your hands' and into 'what's in your checking account that we can get from your debit card'.

And the suspicion part is going to be "I suspect we can get a new margarita machine and a few bonuses out of THIS guy"

If they can only look at prepaid cards, what's the point? Who loads thousands of dollars onto one of those? Absolutely no one. Drug dealers don't put lots of money into bank accounts and i doubt they fill these things up full of cash either. It would be too suspect of a thing to be doing, they generally avoid that.

Sounds to me more like it's targeting users, the poor. They're the types to have cash they cannot prove came from a job (they likely wont have) on one of those cards. The cash gets confiscated and they can't prove it's theirs or afford a lawyer to do anything for them.

All the people defending the law here even say they're just targeting those types of cards. Explain why if it isn't what i said in paragraph 2 here. It's all i can come up with that makes any sense at the moment.

Civil forfeiture needs to end, nationwide.

Short of that, I'd be more than happy to see the entire forfeiture fund at every local LEO establishment be the first source for any fines that PD incurs. Instead of the taxpayer or insurance company footing a million bucks for some out-of-control jackass cop, take it from their toychest for the year. Whatever's left at the end of the year they get to keep. If there's nothing left, awww. And they should have to post the names and photos of every cop that caused it to be dipped into.

Here's why you don't get new cars this year.

a reply to: Bedlam

Again. You have to arouse their suspicion. If there is no probable cause for concern without a reasonable doubt present then they can't do this.

Again probable cause, reasonable doubt.

If the officer can not produce a probable cause without a reasonable doubt then they can not move forward. It all boils down to arousing their suspicion.

Like when I had my motorcycle accident back almost 2 years ago the cop kept saying in every other question: so you're drunk? I kept answering no. He kept trying to mess up my story on purpose to shake me but I know where, when, how, and why I was driving north on that road, and I saw the trucker coming in fast, I never speed because my bike was a pos cruiser. I was in the right lane, and I slammed on my brakes after assessing for 6 seconds whether or not I was going to collide with this trucker in the middle of the intersection.

In fact they took a blood test on me twice at the hospital. Twice. Two times they drew my blood and I watched as the officer walked away giving me a stink eye. Because he could have sworn I was on something. But all tests came up negative for drugs and alcohol.

So again don't #ing arouse the cops suspicion.

It is that simple. Most people will start getting harassed by police for going into certain areas and hanging around.

If you don't want to get harassed then stop using your car to go get your dope. Use a #ing bus. Be smart not lazy. Damn you pot heads are knuckle heads.

I bet 1 million dollars I could go to that city and smuggle billions of dollars and never get pulled over once.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

This is just plain and simple looting of the population by the state.

This is proof that things are so bad in the US that the govt has resorted to looting the citizenry for money.

Get your bug out bag ready people.

a reply to: Azureblue

I see many here are as shocked about this as I am AND I bet other states will adopt this plan as well in the next few months.

This is not the America that I know.......

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: Bedlam

Again. You have to arouse their suspicion. If there is no probable cause for concern without a reasonable doubt present then they can't do this.

Again probable cause, reasonable doubt.

If the officer can not produce a probable cause without a reasonable doubt then they can not move forward. It all boils down to arousing their suspicion.

It's subjective. And they lie all the time. It's mad money for the department. And with civil forfeiture, the money is assumed guilty ab initio.

It's theft. Pure and simple. And the cops have had a field day with it, and now state by state is killing it off.

Good.

This is why cops can't have nice things. If you can't keep the abusers in line, then eventually the tax payers will put the heat to the legislature.

originally posted by: Aazadan
You have the right to be secure in your possessions. Your possessions have no such right. What happens is the property gets charged with a crime, and then the property has to be defended in court. And before you argue the Constitution here, the very people who wrote the fourth amendment used asset forfeiture during their presidencies.

I don't care who uses asset forfeiture--at its core, it's unconstitutional. Whether or not it happens is irrelevant, as there is a lot that happens in government that, IMO (and all of these are opinions), is unconstitutional. I think that most executive orders are unconstitutional, but I also know that they started with George Washington--that doesn't make them right.

Hell, James Madison wrote the fourth amendment, but owned slaves, too--is that okay? No. Hell, he didn't even free them in his will--what a dick. Don't use the actions of a dick as your measurement for what is right.

My point is that you can disregard my argument all you want, but please base it on something logical. What you're doing is employing the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Just because someone big and important did it doesn't make it the right thing to do, and no matter how you slice it, seizing money from individuals before they are found guilty of a crime is, in my not-very-humble opinion, unconstitutional. I don't care what James Madison did concerning asset forfeiture.

Just for fun, I'll bold the important parts:

FOURTH 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.

I'm sure that you'll note that this also says that a warrants shall NOT be issued to seize someone's effects (property...and money is an individual's property) unless the warrant specifies what is to be searched and whose particular thing is to be seized. These officers obviously do not obtain warrants from judges per the Constitution (hence: "Unconstitutional").

So, argue your logical fallacy all that you want, but unwarranted seizures of someone's money is an unconstitutional action. Yes, it happens, but it shouldn't, and apathetic Americans just let it happen without much care.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for post-conviction forfeiture, if all the appeals have been exhausted, then fine, bankrupt them to boot.

There's something so #ed up about "The United States vs 14,232 dollars" that I just can't understand how that ever happened the first time.

How would they swipe my BTC?

a reply to: Bedlam

Hell, I don't even think that appeals need to be exhausted in order to seize the particular amount of money involved in the crime--but it should expeditiously be returned in the event of an overturned conviction upon appeal.

My point is that we should, at the least, have ONE round of a right to a fair trial, and at the very least a warrant for a specific amount of money, completed before our governments can just take our money.

But I think we're on the same page.

I wonder if these cops accept EBT cards?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Most of the south pretty much does resemble a banana republic.

a reply to: Azureblue

Ummmm.....And take that B.O.B. to where?.

Get out much?.

a reply to: GiulXainx

From your little story it sounds as if the officer's suspicion was already aroused, but the officer took blood and your bloodwork proved you were not under the influence.

...Yet you caution everyman to be careful not to arouse the suspicion of the officers...

Truth of the matter is that you should not talk to the police EVER.

Read through the MIRANDA laws, there is no provision for a police officer to speak in your defense because it is actually illegal for the officer to do so.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Truth of the matter is that you should not talk to the police EVER.

Depending on circumstances that action can lead to an arrest.

Miranda is only applicable if a person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yea but it sure sounds badass to say it, amirite?!?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Miranda laws are not only for when you're in custody, they are active always, there is no on/off switch.

I don't understand where some of these beliefs by people originate, must be TV.

What does the sentence "Anything you say, can and will be held against you..." mean in the language you speak?.

You have the right to invoke your fifth amendment rights any time, and that should be all the time.

Not like the fifth amendment goes away just because you're not in the slammer.....


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

'Bout covers the entire issue, even the takings.

Oh, and this which stems from that fifth amendment that is always in effect....

Explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation, stemming largely from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The person detained and interrogated must be made aware of the right to remain silent, the right to consult with an attorney and have the attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if indigent.

Without a Miranda warning or a valid waiver, statements might be inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule (e.g., they cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt in criminal proceedings). See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

But that pesky fifth is always in effect, So Shut Up. Never-minding how anything anyone says to anybody seems to get all twisted up, and then how a police officer's affidavit is always considered the truth, and how an officer of the court's version of the truth, their affidavit, will sway power over yours unless you are aware of the proper way of presentment.


I learned all of this, forgot, and got reminded the hard way.

I have two police reports right here in front of me for the same incident, yep, same incident, and they both say completely different things. How could that be?.

a reply to: Bedlam

Can't see a department caring much about that. Their own transgressions will still be funded by the public. I would imagine they'd just push further seizures to recoup their losses.

Police should be held more personally responsible for their misgivings.

Bet you'd see things clean up quick if an officer had to pay from his salary for offences, or if the Chief lost big for accepting and enforcing immoral or unjust procedures.

Personal accountability is paramount, I reckon.

a reply to: SlowNail

There is this thing called "states sovereignty" if I am not mistaken.

A thing left over from the scum that remained after the U.S. wrenched itself free from the monarchy/merchantile days.

It came along with corporations when the people in the U.S. forgot about how bad companies/corporations treated the ones who came here first and allowed them to take over again.

They CAN'T be held accountable as it would be admission of neglect or wrongdoing and would result in loss of faith by the people at large.

This whole mess, this whole reality, everything floats on a protective barrier of faith and ignorance.