Canadian News Outlet Warns Canadians That US Law Enforcement Officers Will Pull Them Over And Seize Their Cash
from the US-outed-as-serial-abuser dept
The exploitation of asset seizure/forfeiture laws by law enforcement isn't anything new, but it is receiving a lot more attention thanks to an extensive exploration of the subject by the Washington Post. The findings are astonishing/sickening. Over the last 13 years, nearly 62,000 cash seizures have been made by law enforcement officers, resulting in a $2.5 billion haul. And that's just the cash. Depending on local laws, people who have had their cash seized may also lose their vehicles, houses and access to any bank accounts.
Only one-sixth of those whose cash has been seized have engaged in the expensive process necessary to retrieve their money. Nearly half of those who make this attempt have their funds returned, which indicates that many of the cash seizures are predicated on tenuous legal ground (to put it very nicely). But even more bad news awaits should a citizen fight an uphill battle against an infinitely-funded opponent: in many cases, the responding governments only offer back half of what was seized and force citizens to sign a release agreement promising not to sue before they'll hand over the check.
The abusive farce that is asset forfeiture has now reached critical mass: CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) has issued a warning to Canadian travelers. Senior Washington Correspondent Neil MacDonald posted this bluntly-titled article late last week. (via Boing Boing, which also gives us this great phrase: "robbery at badgepoint")
American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your moneyIn it, he cautions Canadians that visiting the US with a bunch of cash on hand is a good way to end up short on funds. He points out that the Canadian government has no law limiting the amount of cash Canadians can take into or out of the country, but that has no bearing on what any local police force inside the US would consider to be the "legal" amount of cash a person -- especially a foreign citizen -- can carry. After all, half the seizures were for less than $8,800 and that number includes a college graduate (with no criminal record) who was relieved of $2,500 given to him by his parents to make a trip to California for a job interview.
MacDonald boils down his travel advice to a few bullet points that may help Canadians avoid becoming victims of government-approved theft.This is what it takes to avoid the sort of police scrutiny that might result in you losing any cash you have on hand. Good luck with that, especially the "not being too talkative or too quiet" part. Being "not from around here" makes visiting Canadians (and other foreign visitors) the best kind of victim: the one who won't fight because it's prohibitively expensive to do so -- or even impossible, depending on visa limitations.
Avoid long chats if you're pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go.
Don't leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans.
Don't use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs.
Don't be too talkative. Don't be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don't have tinted windows.
And for heaven's sake, don't consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
It's the most perverted of incentives. Those seizing the money and assets directly benefit from them -- about as perverse as you can get without spending several hours at 4chan's /b/ [link deliberately not included].
One prosecutor used seized cash to defend herself against a lawsuit brought by people whose cash she seized.Nice work, drug and terror warriors. America is swiftly becoming the First World's Mos Eisely. Everything remotely connected with drug enforcement or counterterrorism carries with it the stench of corruption and abuse. Canadians will now drive through the US like suburbanites who have found themselves on the "wrong" side of town: windows up, doors locked, eyes fixed dead ahead and at a speed just fast enough to deter interaction but not fast enough to draw undue attention.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, cash, forfeiture, law enforcement, police, seizure
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corruption at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The USA: Canada's Mexico."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh puleeeze
The travel guides warn you not to speed in Germany and to be prepared to pay hefty cash fines if you do lest you get your car seized.
...and that is supposed to be considered normal and acceptable there. It's not a controversy like it would be here with.
Then there are French speed cameras. It turns out that they are diligent and efficient when it comes to those.
The Canadians need to get out more.
Perhaps their utopia has left them with less of a travel budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
Whereas in the US, be prepared to pay hefty cash fines for having a lot of cash in your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
Try getting a guide written by someone who can tell the difference between being in Germany and being in Switzerland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh puleeeze
And no, I'm not kidding. Gun nuts' dream location...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh puleeeze
I doubt speeding is a criminal offense even in Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Autobahn
Some of the autobahn have rain speed limits and most have special electronic variable message signs, as well as equipment to detect and automatically warn of fog, rain, and ice.
The left lanes usually have a minimum speed of 110 km/h.
There is few accidents and fatalities, 1.98 deaths at the autobahn and 3.62 deaths at motorways in USA, for each billion km traveled according to IRTAD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Autobahn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
And in Australia...
https://www.facebook.com/nswpoliceforce/posts/10151122661836185?_fb_noscript=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
In the German and French cases you're breaking the law, however minor; in the American case you're simply being robbed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh puleeeze
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We take issue with you referring to the US as the new Mexico. Granted, you have that whole section that is actually called "New Mexico", but the US stormtrooper tactics and clear disregard for the rights of their citizens is most certainly not what Mexico is all about.
Sure, in Mexico you stand a pretty good chance of being kidnapped and killed by members of a drug cartel, if you are imprisoned for breaking a minor law you could find yourself stuck in a small cell for the remainder of your life, and many of our tourist spots are full of pick-pockets and petty thieves.
However, our law enforcement officers will ALWAYS arrest or kill you when taking your cash. For us, it is not just a monetary pursuit, our officers will always make an effort to make any cash seizures at least have a hint of legitimacy by charging you with violation of some law you have never heard of and then make you sign a confession in a foreign language to get some clean water (well, sort-of clean).
Please do not let our good name be tarnished.
- Mexico
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've never seen or experienced anything remotely resembling anything like Americans and Canadians are going thru in the uS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Travelers Checks
But don't try to cash them yourselves at either B of A or Wells Fargo, at least not in California. They both tried to charge me an extra 1% for the privilege of doing business with them for something already paid for. I did not have any problems with them on the rest of my trip from the east coast to the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travelers Checks
My wife went to cash a check given to her, and they wanted to charge us a fee to cash it because we aren't members of their retched institution even though the check was drawn from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travelers Checks
That's what the "NA" business means.
Those idiots will crash the entire system if they aren't careful. Rampant corruption is ultimately bad for business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
'If it doesn't affect me personally, why should I care?' is the mindset of a sociopath, and unfortunately, seems to be required for anyone in charge of a large enough company, with few exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
The really hilarious thing is that when I went to the BofA brnach (the exact one where the check was drawn on), they explained that the fee will be waived if I open an account. Apparently, they think this is a good way to expand the number of people who have accounts there.
Instead, they've given me strong incentive to refuse checks drawn from BofA accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
First they made it illegal for us to own gold. They insisted that we had to swap it for paper money. Now you're saying that it's illegal for us to carry the paper money too? Why shouldn't I be carrying around a bunch of cash? Why is that a problem? Oh, I know, because it's not traceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travelers Checks
For the police, or for you? Because the police love it when you carry around a bunch of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travelers Checks
Why not? Did they make this illegal now?
"If you must have cash, your ATM card will work in any ATM. The ATM fee of $3 or so is small"
There are lots of reasons one would want to reduce or eliminate the use of ATMs. BTW, an ATM fee of $3 is not small. It's large.
People should deal with money in whatever way is most comfortable for them. If that's a big wad of cash, more power to them. There is nothing illegal or even suspicious about it, and there should be no risk of being robbed by law enforcement of all people.
The fault here is the cops, not their victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travelers Checks
Well just off the top of my head, because of civil forfeiture abuse. I don't think he's saying it's wrong to carry a lot of cash, but that it's risky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Travelers Checks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Travelers Checks
It's ambiguous. "Shouldn't" could mean it's wrong, it could mean it's illegal, and it could mean it's just a bad idea. We don't know unless he clarifies his intention. Based on context, I think he means it's a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but that out-of-schedule article on cracked, combined with the massive censorship thats currently happening on 4chan does makes that little comment suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really now. Swiftly becoming¿Heh!
The United States were always a wretched hive, even before they became a "First World" country, and there is no way to change it.
The U.S is the Empire, and needs some serious revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue up John Lennon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue up John Lennon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cue up John Lennon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
And yet visitors still have to deal with American police, TSA, etc. if they want to come here. Small comfort that most Americans are perfectly nice after the police rob you of your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
Works better than a huge fence ever would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
I have no problem with the fact that most Americans are good people; the same can be said about a lot of places. Where I have a problem is that you have state sanctioned highway robbery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more reason not to vacation in 'Murica
Yeah, let's ignore problems with policing until most of the US has erupted in protest. I'm sure that will go well. After all, it's just an anomaly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it a joke?
One would expect such police behavior only in 3rd world countries...
Unbelievable!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it a joke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it a joke?
Their word.
That's all it takes.
Not even the police of the 1980's and 1990's Russia were this bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one law for the rich,
ie poor people may not be able to afford a court case to get
em back.
People in the usa ,have had there house seized cos they owed 100 dollars in state taxes,
or their children were caught using drugs .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robbery at Badgepoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Robbery at Badgepoint
The smartest ones hold public office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Robbery at Badgepoint
Wait. Scratch that.
Ran banks, if they owned them, they'd have something to lose when the dumps go under. If they're just the CEO's they have nothing to lose. And everything to gain by looting the banks.
And stock options can always be gamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
Anyone have any better info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
It just gets better and better, doesn't it? In the olden days, I used to fly to the US a couple of times a year. Have done so only once since the TSA was instituted and won't again if I can possible avoid it. So far, so good.
And now *driving* has become govt creepy? This old lady weeps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
I think I need to write my state legislators and ask them to add my state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
"This category reflects the extent to which a state’s asset forfeiture rules encourage revenue-sharing with the Dept of Justice." The orange ones encourage such revenue sharing the most. It's apparently only an analysis of the rules, not data about how much it happens per capita or anything like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
*Does* anyone know which states do not participate? One of the articles mentioned that there are a few but it didn't name them or offer a link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
I know for a fact that New Mexico and California are two of the best and that Tennessee is one of the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking for the states that have banned the practice I found this: http://freedominthe50states.org/asset-forfeiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immigration Policy 2015R.3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immigration Policy 2015R.3
I'm starting to view Freedom Fries in a whole new light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immigration Policy 2015R.3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traveling in the USA with cash.
This fall instead of Christmas shopping for a bunch of grandkids, eating, leaf watching, etc. in New England, we're going to Montreal. I certainly don't want to risk losing the amount we usually spent but the US economy certainly has from now on. We're off to Montreal instead this fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what about all the cops that take part in what is essentially theft under cover of authority? Once again demonstrates how pliable police morality becomes when something benefits them and their gang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't call them "cultures of corruption" for nothing. Peer pressure is the most powerful force in the universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn libtards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In four hours I leave MN in my MN-licensed car to drive to SanFran via Colorado.
I get to run the forfeiture gauntlet all across the country, plus I get to leave Colorado in a non-Colorado car, meaning the next state will be pulling me over to search for pot.
X-country roadtrips weren't this threatening back when me and my college buds really WERE bringing in the goodies, as they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could go through Wyoming instead. Though that is a much less interesting drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I do worry about this stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But at least...
I see no mention anywhere however about whether the uniformed highwaymen are interested in euro banknotes, which might be a gamesaver on my next trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NewsChannel 5 Investigates: Policing For Profit (2013)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every now and then...
I hate to say it, but at some point, this type of illegal, immoral and unjust seizure will be met with... in the words of Sarah Palin... "a 2nd amendment solution".
People can only be pushed so far and at some point, some of them are going to snap.
At that point, I have very little sympathy for criminals masquerading as "civil servants". This is the type of thing you read about happening in a 2nd or 3rd world country rife with corruption... it's not something you should be reading about a 1st world country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. I do not consent to any searches
2. Am I free to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131105/05401425129/cops-subject-man-to-rectal-searches-enemas-co lonoscopy-futile-effort-to-find-drugs-they-swear-he-was-hiding.shtml
1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
At no time did Eckert give his consent to these searches.
At no time did Eckert give his consent to these searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not consenting provides no guarantees, but consenting to a search guarantees that any evidence found will be admissible, and you will not be able to get any relief for an unlawful search.
Just remember that the police are not going to say "You have the right to refuse permission to search your vehicle. May I have permission?" They'll say something more like "I'm going to search your vehicle now, OK?" At which time you say "I do not consent to any search." Then they ask "Why not?" and you say "Am I free to go?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anecdotal tendentiousness
Cash seizures: 62,000
Period: 13 years
= approx. 50,744 adult Americans per seizure per year
That's anecdotal, even in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm wondering if you know what anecdotal means, because this statement doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is not, in fact, what anecdotal means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are trafficking cash in a state where that is illegal, then it makes sense that the cops would take it, so you have to prove it belongs to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's nowhere it's illegal to travel with cash. The problem is the police can seize the perfectly legally carried cash for basically no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not "robbery at badgepoint"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B). The asset forfeiture laws were originally written to take care of the (rare) situation where the known drug bigwig gets tossed and has no drugs, nothing incriminating, just megawads of cash (which obviously came from his drug business.)
The cops would be just about frothing at the mouth - they KNEW the guy was dirty, they KNEW the cash was drug sales proceeds, but all they could do was hand it back to him and listen to him laugh. At them. Cops HATE that.
So they designed this abortion of a law, and immediately misused it and became suddenly, happily, rich.
What they choose to ignore is that this law was one of the last straws that caused many of us - most? - to consider the cops to be just another thieving gang preying upon the lawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially promptly. Swiftly becoming¿Heh!
The United States were always a wretched hive, even before they became a "First World" country, and there is no way to change it.
USA is the Empire, and needs some serious revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As long as that hard work includes turning in dirty cops. Cops as a group are notoriously unwilling to report on the misdeeds of their fellow officers, even if they disagree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usual question about cops and civil forfiture
Of course if that happens they'll whine incessantly about it like they do about anything to give the teeniest bit of criticism or extra accountability. They're even worse than farmers which is quite an accomplishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]