DEA Takes $16,000 From Train Passenger Because It Can
from the no-due-process-for-dead-presidents dept
There were no drugs and nothing to enforce, but that didn't stop the Drug Enforcement Agency from taking $16,000 from a passenger on a train headed to California.
After scraping together enough money to produce a music video in Hollywood, 22-year-old Joseph Rivers set out last month on a train trip from Michigan to Los Angeles, hoping it was the start of something big.Leaving aside the unsavory hint of racial profiling, there's the fact that the DEA helped itself to cash simply because it was cash. It had no reason to suspect Rivers of anything, but the money was apparently too much to pass up. Even having his story corroborated was useless. And, sure, the DEA agents had no reason to believe anyone Rivers put them in touch with was a trustworthy source of information. (After all, he's some sort of drug dealer, right?) But to grant the DEA the benefit of the doubt for its refusal to believe Rivers' mother's statements is to cut the agents an absurd amount of slack for everything preceding that.
Rivers changed trains at the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 15, with bags containing his clothes, other possessions and an envelope filled with the $16,000 in cash he had raised with the help of his family, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration got on after him and began looking for people who might be trafficking drugs.
Rivers said the agents questioned passengers at random, asking for their destination and reason for travel. When one of the agents got to Rivers, who was the only black person in his car, according to witnesses, the agent took the interrogation further, asking to search his bags. Rivers complied. The agent found the cash -- still in a bank envelope -- and decided to seize it on suspicion that it may be tied to narcotics. River pleaded with the agents, explaining his situation and even putting his mother on the phone to verify the story.
No luck.
Because what did the DEA actually have here? A young guy and $16,000 in cash. According to the DEA's own statements, it doesn't need anything more than that to effect an asset seizure. And, according to the DEA's own statements, it has no reason to bother with anything more than a cursory look that "confirms" what it wants it to confirm.
[Sean] Waite [DEA - Albuquerque] said that in general DEA agents look for “indicators” such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person’s story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.If we leave it to the DEA to define drug activity "hot spots," it becomes any destination any traveler is headed to, especially if there's seizable cash involved. As for story inconsistencies, we're back to "eye of the beholder" territory. If agents are motivated to perform asset seizures, any story can be found to have enough flaws to justify the forfeiture. Waite's statement is very unhelpful, other than to show how completely screwed up asset forfeiture programs are.
As if on cue -- and as if the DEA's Sean Waite is completely unaware of the level of scrutiny and negative public opinion centered on asset forfeiture programs -- he delivers the most tone-deaf of talking points:
“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”Boom. There's your problem. Or rather, Rivers' problem. And the problem of far too many Americans who made the mistake of leaving home with cash on their person. The government doesn't need to prove shit. It can just take and take and take and force those wronged by its "presumptions" to jump through multiple expensive and mostly futile hoops if they hope to recover their "guilty" belongings.
So, what do you tell people like Rivers? "Don't carry cash?" Cash is universal and accepted everywhere. But it's also apparently inherently guilty. Just don't carry large amounts of cash? From Virginia's asset forfeiture stats:
Contrary to the oft-stated defense that these programs are necessary to cripple powerful drug lords and multimillion dollar fraudsters, more than half the cash seized from 2001-2006 fell in the $614-1,288 range and the average worth of vehicles seized has hovered at about $6,000.And Philadelphia, PA's:
A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.Any cash is inherently suspicious and can be deemed "guilty" by the seizing agency with no corroborating evidence. $16,000 has just made its way into the DEA's funds and if Rivers wants it back, he's likely going to lose a great deal of it to legal fees. He's currently trying to raise the money the DEA took from him via crowdfunding site GoFundMe. Hopefully, he'll get another chance to make his music video without being sidelined by government agents looking to bust some "guilty" cash.
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: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, dea, in rem, joseph rivers, legalized theft, money, stealing
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Amendment V:Amendment XIV:Why there aren't grounds for a massive (and successful) legal complaint against the state/federal government over asset "forfeiture" programs is beyond my comprehension.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As it does with a whole lot of abuses. The question still remains: if the Govt couldn't care less about the people and the official channels won't suffice to fix things then what should the people do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the people do not feel like they will be treated fairly then they will treat you unfairly back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True Americans use heavily debited credit cards.
I wish to god I was making this up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how "lucky" was the DEA agent who found this cash?
2) He was required to produce valid photo ID when he purchased his Amtrak ticket.
3) DHS believes any large cash transaction is potentially evidence of drug-money laundering and/or tax-evasion until proven otherwise.
In view of the above, there is no reason I can think of to discount the possibility that the bank and travel information might have been pulled together by DHS software, and an alert triggered to send the DEA to investigate.
If you think that is paranoia, consider that "monitoring of suspicious activity" is exactly what the government has been saying they are trying to do when they spend millions of our tax dollars on 'big data' tracking programs like Palantir.
The possibility for unethical and unconstitutional targeted abuse is exactly why I get concerned when government, and in particular law enforcement, starts talking about the benefits of big data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just how "lucky" was the DEA agent who found this cash?
As for 3, it would probably cost more than the $16,000 taken to prove that cash innocent.
On the other hand, who said anyone in government was intelligent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just how "lucky" was the DEA agent who found this cash?
As for this:
As for 3, it would probably cost more than the $16,000 taken to prove that cash innocent.
That's one of the large reasons they feel so safe stealing from the public so blatantly, because they know people would often be better off financially just accepting the loss of property/money, rather than fighting back.
If a cop steals $100 from you by claiming it's 'drug related funds', and you know it would take at least $150 to get it back... yeah, at that point most people are just going to drop it and move on, and the police and government agencies involved in robbery at badge-point know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just how "lucky" was the DEA agent who found this cash?
But no, that's not paranoia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just how "lucky" was the DEA agent who found this cash?
The original news report by Joline Gutierrez Krueger in the Albuquerque Journal can be read here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please post some links about the DHS asking people to "SAY SOMETHING" when they see a fellow citizen make a purchase over $100 in cash. Those are the types of things I include in my e-mail when I contact government reps (state and federal senators, congressmen and women, the President, etc.). I'm not naive. I doubt things will get better, but for the sake of our country we must speak up and try to be heard. Things have become so despotic I fear that change will only come in the violent wake of a citizen uprising. We have far more people in prison per capita than any country in the world. Not even per capita we have more prisoners than China, and the Chinese government isn't exactly afraid to put people in prison. We've been stripped of our rights for a war on drugs that has become nothing but a political tag line (Tough on Crime = I'll put people in jail for many years for carrying a dime bag). Habeas Corpus has been suspended. You don't even need to be carrying cash to have assets stolen by the government. You can have your house, cars and bank accounts stolen because your teenager is caught with a few joints, then they decide he must have been dealing from your house.
It's so ridiculous how shredded the constitution has become that I don't know how to explain to my own children what our country represents, or rather doesn't represent any longer.
May we save us from ourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looney Tunes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are a lot of cases where police have been shoot and sometimes killed in no knock raids.
Carrying firearms in defense of yourself is exactly what the 2nd is about, including from law enforcement... go and read up on the constitution and why the founders put it there. They are damn fucking clear to the point that only a cognitively dissonant liberal and dumb fucking conservative would confuse it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This way he might be able to kill one of his attackers instead of just being murdered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
Law enforcement that confiscates cash/cars/whatever without probable cause are criminals according to the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It sounds like the cash needs more protection from law enforcement than you, I always thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alas, Bad Elk isn't considered "law of the land"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going to have to start carrying a handgun to protect myself from law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amendment V:Amendment XIV:Why there aren't grounds for a massive (and successful) legal complaint against the state/federal government over asset "forfeiture" programs is beyond my comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
not the person
got to love the "Redefinition" of words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, anything over $10k of foreign currency is considered "reasonable suspicion" these days, so maybe they'd just arrest the person instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any such complaints would have to be held in the government's own courts. See the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So that means they can take his money? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
was he required to speak to them at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: was he required to speak to them at all?
"Am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go?"
"Am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go?"
"Am I being detained?"
"Am I free to go?"
"Am I being detained?"
...repeat ad nauseam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEA Is As Corrupt As They Come
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amendment IV
therefor the CASH is a person
they took into custody the "person/CASH$$$"
i think this is perfect for the age old
"prisoner exchange "
take 16,000 in DEA property "prisoner"
and do a PUBLIC!!!!! exchange of the "cash" prisoner for say the "DEA car" prisoner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amendment IV
... However, the person carrying it *is* a citizen and the money is in their possession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
No, the only correct answer to a LEO asking to search your belongings is "no". If they have a warrant, they won't be asking for permission.
If you refuse the search and they do it anyway, you shouldn't try to stop them. That's the sort of thing that will get you shot or beat up. Instead, you should make a big stink about it in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's come to this.
So essentially, Law enforcement has no legitimacy and is only a street gang that happens to be subsidized by taxes.
Maybe it's time to challenge that subsidy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"asserting your Constitutional rights"
At the point that it is presumed only criminals assert their rights, something is wrong with the entire society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
And he's probably one of those people that thinks since they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about. After all, cops in the U.S. don't steal like the ones in third world countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
(John Oliver episode)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like life is pretty good in the US as long as you are a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acronym
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DEA obviously had good cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DEA obviously had good cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The DEA obviously had good cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The DEA obviously had good cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Papers, please."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So when are they expected to charge the (obviously easily identified) bank with facilitating and participating in these same illegal activities ?? Why have they not seized all the bank's cash on hand ?? Hmm ?? Hmm ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cartel Banks
Of course we know why, but I would love to see this happen. It would at least be easier to justify given the big bank's history of knowingly laundering drug cartel money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cartel Banks
Or a cost of doing business if you prefer. Even when it came out they funded terrorist groups they got a fine that amounted to less than 1% of what they made off of those terrorism deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a horrible place to visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't give up your rights.
Q: "May I search your bags, sir?"
A: "No, you may not."
--
Never open your bags for police, unless so required:
Q: "Would you open your bag for me, sir?"
A: "No. Not without a warrant."
--
Don't provide information you're not required to provide by law:
Q: What is your name, sir?
A: [provide your name]
Q: Where are you headed?
A: My travel plans are my own business. I will not say anything further without a lawyer present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't give up your rights.
You just may end up with a few broken bones, a couple felony charges, and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and legal bills. And you will still get searched.
At the end of the day they have guns and the power to arrest, beat, or even kill you and you have a 200 year old piece of paper the Supreme Court has been tearing away at for just as long.
If you are white and aren't poor, you can easily assert your rights. If you are black and poor you may only end up with the choice of licking the boot or having it stomp on your neck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't give up your rights.
However it is also clear that when it comes to percent of the population there are about five times more whites than blacks.
Do not assume that a white guy will be okay in front of a cop... its more associated with your ability to afford justice, not your race. It just so happens that cops are in areas where crime is high and it also just so happens that there are a lot of minorities in those areas too.
We are definitely in a police state. To change this we need to be focusing on judges, DA's and Elected officials. That is how you get dirt bag cops out of here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't give up your rights.
If you are white and have money, it would be an anomaly to be killed, even if you are black and have lots of money (assuming you aren't perceived as "uppity" to the cop).
Nobody will elect politicians, judges, or DAs that aren't "tough on crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't give up your rights.
When the hell did tough on crime come to mean racist and or classist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tough on crime
It means we presume people guilty prior to conviction those who look like hoodlums.
Who looks like hoodlums? Those who don't look like you. Unless you happen to be Chester "Snake" Turley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't give up your rights.
And since almost all cash is contaminated with drugs, the dog will detect it and...bye, bye, money! (And that assumes they aren't teaching the dogs to indicate on cash itself, which they could do and probably are.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't give up your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frank Herbert, "God Emperor of Dune"
/darmok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seize the same amount from the DEA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Tax Dollars At Work
What constitution did the DEA cretins swear to uphold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Tax Dollars At Work
Funny right?
I mean, if you wanted a band of criminal element would you ask them to swear an oath to uphold something like a constitution?
You just do not do things you are not required to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our Tax Dollars At Work
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/28/seattle-pays-1-5m-to-family-of-victim-of-police-shooting /
At least this deaf man was able to get justice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police state of course if that wasn't mentioned yet. where those in power get treated differently from everyone else instead of everyone supposed to be treated equally under god
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just this administration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people who have their money and property taken can't sue the government for any of that stuff, all they can do is try to prove their property isn't "illegal"... And if they are one of the few lucky ones who can do so in court, they are more likely to owe more money to their lawyer than was seized in the first place.
Not enough of us Americans give a shit about the Constitution, none of our politicians or judges give a shit about it, and people here adore our police so much that they smile and thank them as they are being fucked in the ass by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not that we don't give a shit, and it's not that we adore the police. It's that we are literally powerless before them. The police have guns, the will to use them, and (almost) no repercussions. Resist and you may well die. The courts are no help; they twist and turn the law until whatever they want is legal. The polls? "Lesser of two evils" doesn't work anymore; neither evil is "lesser" enough.
It will reach a point where it boils over, we'll have a new government, and (hopefully) another couple of hundred years of relative freedom until we have to do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question...
Sure! You mean it's never happened to you? What do you think UFOs are for? Notice the increasing numbers of reported sightings? It correlates perfectly with the increased numbers of TSA agents, and it has long been established that they (TSA) are non-human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk to anyone and they will tell you to never carry a large amount of cash with you. Large amounts of cash signal only one thing: criminal enterprise.
You ask the bank for a cashier's check, money order or transfer the money either through Western Union or whatever. YOU DO NOT TRAVEL WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH.
Never mind that you could get robbed by someone who knows you're traveling with a lot of cash. MORONS.
I don't blame the DEA in this case for any reason. What are they going to do, just take your word for it. If any perfect sense, they would need to do their own investigation. So, train passenger who had his $16k confiscated, GET OVER IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are they going to do? Cook up some suspicion until it's reasonable? See how much cause they have that approaches probable? Return the money once they've ascertained it's not linked to anything illegal? Maybe arrest the guy if they truly think he's in the narcotics business?
I don't know, but maybe anything other than the thing they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take a look at the median amounts of money confiscated - it is typically under $500. Is it unreasonable to carry around $500? You can barely even take a family of four out to an upscale restaurant in Manhattan for that much...
What about if you are a business owner who is paid in cash and you are taking it to the bank? Should the DEA be able to take all of your cash every time you are on your way to the bank to make a deposit because it is suspicious? Should every pizza place have to hire an armored car to drop off 10 or 15 grand in cash to the bank after a busy weekend or risk having it seized by the DEA.
Since when is carrying the only official currency of our nation suspicious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, unless they can PROVE otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once you're done licking those boots, make sure to thank the one wearing them
There, fixed that for you.
You ask the bank for a cashier's check, money order or transfer the money either through Western Union or whatever. YOU DO NOT TRAVEL WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH.
Correct, because if you do, apparently that's all it takes to have it stolen by the police or other government agencies.
Never mind that you could get robbed by someone who knows you're traveling with a lot of cash. MORONS.
Hey, would you look at that, that's exactly what happened here. He was robbed by someone who discovered he was travelling with a lot of cash, it just happened at badgepoint instead of gunpoint.
What are they going to do, just take your word for it.
Unless they have other evidence other than 'he has a lot of cash', yes.
A lot of criminals drive cars, would you support having your car stolen by some badge toting thug on those grounds? No trial, no investigation, just 'you have a car, criminals use cars, therefore your car is mostly likely used for illegal actions and will be taken.'
So, train passenger who had his $16k confiscated, GET OVER IT.
Stolen, not confiscated, the latter implies that they actually have any interest in returning it, and that they had any real reason to steal it in the first place beyond "That's a lot of money I'd really love to have".
You know, as tempting as it is to hope that you would experience something similar, just have something of yours stolen like this with absolutely no recourse available for you to get it back without you being forced to spend a ton of time and money doing so, I'm actually capable of that thing called empathy. I'm not the kind of person who looks at someone who was just robbed, or mugged, or had their car stolen and says 'Get over it', as though it's some minor thing like spilling your drink, and it says a lot about you that you apparently are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When we visited Japan we were constantly having to get cash out of ATMs because places wouldn't accept credit cards...and as the hotels are pretty expensive, we had to carry a lot of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which can also be seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only problem is that legal right is all too frequently ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet, this discussion on this very forum shows you are wrong.
Plenty of Anyone's here have read articles about cash in the bank being seized and with 0% or even negative interest rates - what is your incentive to keep money in non-cash?
Thugs who go with "Large amounts of cash signal only one thing: criminal enterprise." are a far bigger problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As if any further proof was needed, kenichi tanaka, you are a moron douchebag. Die in a fire ASAP. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, when are the DEA agents going after the rich? Bet that don't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Also suprised the DEA didn't try to deport him to a random country, which they've done before without warning, warrant or any sort of evidence whatsoever, based on nothing but "he looks like a foreigner".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will it stop?
Nevertheless, forfeiture is a reality of life; it's like hurricanes, fire, and flood. You protect yourself from those disasters with insurance. In the case of forfeiture, the protection is simple: Do not carry large amounts of cash. How long does this have to go on before people get that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will it stop?
Maybe instead of people just accepting that the police and government agents can and will steal from you at badgepoint(if not gunpoint) if they feel like it, and being careful not to carry cash as a result, maybe those stealing should be told firmly(backed by threat of significant jail-time) that they are not allowed to steal from the public at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will it stop?
Yea, a large amount of cash, like $178.
What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will it stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will it stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will it stop?
Then please explain the taking of money from bank accounts as covered by Techdirt.
No carrying of large amounts of cash and yet forfeiture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what is also a "fact of life"? Crime...
If you were around a municipality there just were predators all around looking to rob you, or worse. You carried a sword. You traveled with friends. You trusted no stranger. If you were robbed or pickpocketed, you hired a thief-taker to get your belongings back.
Then the Bow Street Runners were founded on Henry Fielding's notion that maybe crime shouldn't be a fact of life. With time it became the first professional police force.
You know what doesn't have to be a fact of life? Police. Society did survive without them. And right now the police are looking worse than the crime that they allegedly are hired to prevent or bring to justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"total morons have no rights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if it were however, it still would not justify stealing it on the spot from the owner, without so much as a hint of a trial before the verdict of 'Guilty' was handed out.
The only real differences between this case and someone being mugged is the victim wasn't allowed to fight back, and the robbers had badges, and the fact that you continue to defend the robbers says much about you, none of it good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defending the robbers
Even the Dalai Lama has been known to say natural disaster victims get their just desserts from past-life sins.
We want to believe that the world is just, because to acknowledge that it's not, and that we have to change it for ourselves (or are powerless to do so) is frustrating and outrageous and ultimately just depressing.
And rather than face such a horrible truth some of us make up fantasies like karma or hellfire, or that things are somehow the way they should be.
Personally, I choose to feel the outrage, even when there is nothing yet to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.
You are the moron man, you are the sheeple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess the experiment is over now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only in America...
Are DEA officers above the law or simply immune to those parts of it everybody else is obliged to follow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only in America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only in America...
Three-tiered, actually, like Medieval feudalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Or does that principle only apply to humans and not to a human's property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh nice
There is no such thing as an "expensive one-way ticket". Tickets are priced the same except for first/second class. First class is less of a push-and-shove, which might be a consideration if you carry money and want to avoid getting into tussle/trouble.
And second: why would one buy a one-way ticket in order to conduct drug business? One buys a one-way ticket if one is planning not to come back, at least not in the time frame for a return ticket.
Which is usually the case when you are relocating and/or changing your way of life. Which is not what drug dealers do.
This looks more like a recipe for finding people carrying money than people doing drug business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson I am taking away from this is, if you are black
Don't drive
Don't carry money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not a good thing at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where can we go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where can we go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Targeting was probably fully automated
In which case you are looking at the shape of things to come for all of us. The "random search" was probably just eyewash to conceal parallel construction. In all probability they knew exactly who and what they were looking for before they boarded.
Unfortunately any inquiry into the matter would likely be quashed considering the silk roads precedent. The 4th and 5th amendments are now mutually exclusive in Federal court. You have to admit guilt before you have a right to discovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeting was probably fully automated
The only thing I doubt about your comment is the word "probably".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that our good friend kenichi tanaka doesn't seem to know this makes me question if he is even Asian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I stopped wondering about that a long time ago ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people who say "If you have nothing to hide, let the officers search" would quickly change their tune once this happened to them too. He had nothing to hide, still lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gofundme.com/joerivers
Joseph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEA Asset Theft
You have the right to remain broke. Anything you do or say will be construed as an inconsistency and twisted into some kind of cause to search and retain your assets. You have the right to look like you can't afford an attorney to fight to have your assets returned. If you can afford an attorney, you have the right be stripped of your obviously guilty assets for no discernible reason whatsoever until you cannot afford one.
I'm betting that when they search travelers, such as Mr. Rivers that they don't search First Class airline passengers who would likely be carrying more cash than I make in several months. Anyone on their way to NYC, Miami, Chicago or L.A. is obviously going there for drugs after all, but like schoolyard bullies the DEA doesn't pick fights with anyone who can fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]