Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
from the someone-did-some-crime-somewhere-maybe-so-we're-taking-your-stuff dept
A 1996 decision by the Michigan Supreme Court set the precedent for the widespread abuse of civil asset forfeiture in the state. The ruling said being an innocent owner of property seized is no defense and any forfeiture predicated on the illegal acts of others could result in the actual owner being deprived of property without violating their Constitutional rights.
The state's law enforcement agencies took this ruling and ran with it. To ensure minimum legal hassle, cops are "fighting" crime by taking small amounts of cash and 20-year-old vehicles from people they imagine might have committed a crime, were thinking about committing a crime, or happened to wander into an area where crime exists.
The city of Detroit and Wayne County prosecutors are the busiest of the state's busy kleptomaniacs.
In an ongoing crackdown, Wayne County has seized more than 2,600 vehicles and collected more than $1.2 million in revenue from civil asset forfeiture over the past two years.
A proposed class action has been filed challenging the city's forfeiture program which deprives the owners of their property due to other people's actions. The lawsuit [PDF], filed with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, tells just two of these 2,600 stories. Both involve vehicle owners losing their cars because of someone else's alleged criminal acts -- even when no criminal charges were ever filed.
The first involves a woman who had to file for bankruptcy and now takes the bus because the city decided to take her car from her.
Melisa Ingram, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, knows the many abuses of Detroit’s system firsthand. Last summer her car was seized by Wayne County sheriff’s deputies after she lent it to her then-boyfriend so he could drive to a friend’s barbeque. Later that day, police pulled him over for slowing down in an area known for prostitution. Although he was never charged with a crime, police nevertheless seized Melisa’s 2017 Ford Fusion.
Ingram paid $1,355 to get her car back. Six months later, she again loaned the vehicle to her boyfriend while she attended a barbecue. As he was pulling away from the house, the same Wayne County deputies pulled him over and seized the car again, claiming the house he was leaving was supposedly connected to drugs or prostitution. Just like the previous incident, the car was seized immediately and no criminal charges were filed. Ingram could not afford the $1,800 the police said she had to pay to release her car.
A similar thing happened to another plaintiff -- only this time cops yanked the car out right from underneath him. His story is even stranger, but it had the same end result: law enforcement had one more car in its possession than it did prior to the stop.
In July 2019, a man with whom Robert [Reeves] sometimes works asked him to visit a job site where he was clearing rubbish. The man had a skid-steer loader at the site and wanted to know if Robert knew how to operate it. Robert demonstrated how to use the equipment and the two men planned to meet the next day to begin their work.
Robert then drove to a nearby gas station and went inside to purchase a bottle of water. As he was leaving, officers surrounded him and demanded to know what he knew about a skid steer that was allegedly stolen from Home Depot. Robert knew nothing other than that the other man had rental paperwork from Home Depot, which was consistent with Robert’s understanding that the equipment had been rented. After several hours of detention in the back of a police car, Robert was let go without being arrested. He has not been charged with anything.
Police seized Robert’s Camaro on the spot, along with two cell phones and $2,280 that he had in his pocket.
More than six months have passed since this seizure and Wayne County prosecutors have yet to move forward with forfeiture proceedings. With no proceedings, there's no way to challenge the seizure. Meanwhile, his car sits in an impound lot racking up fees. Reeves was told by the Vehicle Seizure Unit that he would need to hire a lawyer if he wanted to get any answers at all about his car and how to get it back. But all this did was force Reeves to spend more money getting nowhere.
Robert then hired an attorney, but employees of the Vehicle Seizure Unit and Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office refused to speak with his attorney, too. No one will take their calls, despite dozens and dozens of attempts to learn more.
Since the agencies involved in the seizure can keep up to 100% of proceeds from forfeited property, there's zero incentive for them to work with the victims of these programs, much less move forward quickly with forfeiture proceedings. And agencies appear to make it more difficult than the process already is by serving notification -- seemingly deliberately -- to parties other than the owners of the property. In Ingram's case, the first notice went to her boyfriend who was driving the seized car. In Reeve's case, he was never served at all.
These experiences aren't unique. They can't be. A single county doesn't seize more than 3 cars a day if it's not profitable. But unless the law is changed -- or state precedent overturned -- police will continue to take property from innocent owners because being innocent isn't enough to prevent a forfeiture. That's what the plaintiffs are hoping to change. The lawsuit seeks a ruling declaring the state's forfeiture policies unconstitutional -- a violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It's an uphill fight, given state court precedent, but a federal challenge may finally upend the terrible laws that ruin state residents' lives and deprive them of their property without any finding of criminal wrongdoing.
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, legalized theft, melisa ingram, michigan, robert reeves, wayne county
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Quick Reference
The downside is that there is a lot of president (that should not exist) supporting civil asset forfeiture. This needs to go to the Supreme Court, though I am not so sure the current Supreme Court is the one we want considering this question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick Reference
The word you're looking for is "precedent."
Although I agree with you about the president that should not exist (and who supports civil asset forfeiture, unless it's done by the IRS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick Reference
Yes, yes I was. The hurrier I go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
"Yes, yes I was. The hurrier I go..."
In your defense there is indeed a lot of president supporting civil forfeiture, said president probably admiring the ability to do a snatch'n'grab without even having to run a con about it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
Especially of felines...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick Reference
I don't know... it works well both ways. Certainly the police agency is running a scam, a racket, a con job. And, for 'president', the Great Leader in the White House is doing the same thing... all his life right up to today. So I'd file this one in 'Freudian slip' and just appreciate it. Who says 'irony is dead in the Age of Trump?!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
A racket? They're doing the RICO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
Which one?
On this side of the virtual wall only their rhetoric and suit designers have been different for thest few decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick Reference
I see your posting of the Constitution, and raise you Title 18, Section 241 of the United States Code. A state law that violates a constitutional right causes anyone enforcing it to violate a federal law that criminalizes constitutional rights violations.
Since federal statutes have supremacy over state statutes, enforcing a state statute is no shield from a federal statute.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick Reference
The problem I see with that is that it would be the DoJ we would expect to do the enforcement. That would be enforcement against law enforcement. I don't see the current DoJ doing anything of the kind, though they should. For that matter, this isn't a new issue and past DoJ's haven't done the job either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
DOJ is doublespeak.
I'm surprised that there is no formal Department of Peace Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick Reference
"Since federal statutes have supremacy over state statutes, enforcing a state statute is no shield from a federal statute."
Great. Now all we need is for Bill Barr to voluntarily help prosecuting dirty cops...
...i think I just spotted the weak link in your argument.
Q: Quis Custodes Ipsos Custodiet?
A: Nemo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Reference
Time to find Nemo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically...
When TSA forces you to leave your bottle-opener at the security checkpoint, isn't that based on civil asset forfeiture as well? They don't file charges on you for attempting to smuggle a weapon onboard an aircraft, but they don't give you your stuff back, give you a receipt, or provide a way to claim it for shipping. You basically have to re-purchase your item (or someone else's) at auction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically...
No because among other things you have agreed to the terms of carriage and airplane travel is not a right. It’s akin to having to empty your water bottles out at a concert in front of a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technically...
They don't auction those things off. They're considered abandoned property. Anytime we needed a knife or a Leatherman, we would routinely stop by the TSA offices at the airport and they have barrels full of them that people have discarded at the checkpoints. Just root through them till you find something you like, and voila.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick Reference
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See the founding fathers tried to be clear and unambiguous, but even the most clearly written document can be subject to many interpretations by those who dislike the original intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
civil forfeiture — noun — the idea that police can prevent crime by seizing from people certain possessions that help prevent some people from feeling desperate enough to commit crimes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
civil asset forfeiture as it now exists, allows the police to profit from vigilante actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guy loses his car because he SLOWS DOWN on a street the cops have deemed a pros stroll?
FFS, they used to at least need to find drugs or a 'suspicious' amount of cash to steal the car. Now all you have to do is drive into the wrong part of town or tap your brakes in the wrong place and your car goes poof?
Jeezus wept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Now all you have to do is drive into the wrong part of town or tap your brakes in the wrong place and your car goes poof?"
It's not exactly new though. The US built it's original law enforcement structure out of gunslingers and bounty hunters barely one stateline away from a hanging. And there's a LOT of mythology surrounding the idea that "law" often stands in the way of "justice". Meaning the police still has the backing of the public no matter HOW dirty they turn out to be. Add to this the traditional american value of not really giving a shit about other people - especially not people who must somehow have had it coming - and the cops can suddenly get away with a whole lot of things you wouldn't expect to see in law enforcement this side of the third world.
Many claim the US police is the biggest gang in the US. They aren't quite right, but I don't think they're that far off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uh... aren't you a cop, btr?
I know cops aren't supposed to know the laws they enforce but I'd at least expect the team to know how to run the schemes as determined by the higher-ups...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like they should lose the lawsuit eventually but Michigan is pretty corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Damnit, why didn't we think of that?!'
The non-badge wearing criminal groups have got to be facepalming left and right for not figuring out that trick. If you want to rob someone blind you get a badge first, then the courts will not only look the other way they'll actively support your robbery.
Stories like this just further solidify the idea that I've had for years now that the biggest and most dangerous criminal group in the country are the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect
I had the perfect comment, but the cops seized it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, you go down to the impound yard, cut the lock the gate, go in, find your car, start it up, and take it back
problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Committing an actual crime won’t fix the problem of having your shit taken for committing no crime at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, you could break into the DMV computer network, put the car back in your name, and remove it from the list of stolen vehicles, then break into other networks and erase the warrants from your arrest.
Then you use one of the myriad of disk wiping programs to obliterate any evidence on your computer that you did break into the DMV computer network. No evidence = NO CASE
problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gut feeling equals asset forfeiture, and so lack of evidence won't help keep the cops away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, if they cannot find any evidence in your computer, they have nothign on you.
I am speficially referring to erasing evdince, so that you cannot be charged with computer crimes for breaking into computers to put the car back into your name, or erasing warrants from your arrest. If the evidence is not on your hard disk, they cannot lay those charges.
I use programs like that every time I buy a new computer, because you do not know what is on there, you don't know what that techs who put your computer together might have done.
When I buy a computer, I also buy the latest copy of Windows, and then totally reinstall Windows after I have wiped the hard disk, so anything I don't know is there that could get me put in jail is GONE, should any cops come around to take my machines, for any reason . What they cannot find, they cannot prosecute
I did that a on brand new laptop I bought a few years ago, before going into Mexico, so that if CBP did a device search coming back in the country, so that anything the techs who put it together might have done would not get me into trouble. If CBP had done any device search, anything the techs who put it together might have done would have never been found.
People have been burned for what they did not know was on their machines, especially if they were recently purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are missing the problem with asset seizure, as all it requires is a cop to say "That was used to commit a crime" and they get to take your stuff, no evidence required. Unless you can afford to and get a court to tell them to give it back, they get to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am speficially referring to erasing evdince, so that you cannot be charged with computer crimes for breaking into computers to put the car back into your name, or erasing warrants from your arrest. If the evidence is not on your hard disk, they cannot lay those charges."
You haven't read up on "civil forfeiture", it seems. You keep saying "evidence" as if that is actually required.
In reality the cop walks into your home, looks through your PC...
1) If he finds anything suspicious he impounds the computer. You'll never be getting it back.
2) If he doesn't find anything suspicious on your computer he'll consider that fact suspicious in itself and probably rigged. He impounds the computer. You'll never be getting it back.
This bit of broken investigatory logic is often referred to as "Morton's Fork". No matter what you do you're screwed.
On his way out he impounds your 42" plasma screen, your high-priced stand mixer, toaster and microwave, and finally your car, because he can "clearly smell something suspicious" or "had a hunch".
Maybe your lack of an observed trail renders you unprosecutable. It still doesn't prevent the cops from coming by once a month and confiscating any electric appliance you may have bought or otherwise obtained between their visits.
And unless you can somehow afford good legal help, you've got no recourse. Welcome to america.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am talking about when they take it back to the cop shop to examine it.
They would have to take it back to the station to examine it. If investigators cannot find anything, they have no case
What I am talking about is after they seize it and take it back.to the station.
If a cop ever seizes my.phone for asset forfeiture i.will turn phone off before handing it over
You see, with android 6 and up has a very secure mode. You can configure the phone where amdroid will not boot up without your password, so investigators at the cop shop cannot access your phone without that password. All.they can do I'd throw the phone in the trash
The contents of your phone are encrypted at shutdown in that mode, and remain encrypted until the password is entered.
They cannot come back later and arrest you, as there is no.criminal law you could be charged under for locking cops out of your phone in that manner. There is no criminal statute, in any of the 50 states, that makes locking investigators out of your phone like that a crime
Because I live in California, cops in the states of 0klahoma and tennesee where erad is used could not come to my apartment in California to do any asset forfeiture because Oklahoma and tennesee police have no jurisdiction hete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He would have to call in for a truck to haul my furniture away.
I could keep that from happening by jamming his radio so he could not do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, Detroit is close to Canada where once you have stolen your vehicle from impound, you head for the border with Canada. Once you are in Canada, that will be the end of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Paper cut? Just chop your hand off, problem solved.'
Ah you again, giving terrible advice guaranteed to make things worse.
For the life of me I still cant figure out if you're trolling or just that nuts. Enjoy the funny flag either way I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Flee to Canada (if you are Canadian)
There are likely a lot of Canadian citizens in Detroit, because of its proximity to Canada.
Someone who is a Canadian citizen could go and steal their car back from impound and then head for the Canadian border. Once over the border the Canadians would have to let them in, as Canada cannot deny entry to its own citizens.
A Canadian citizen who was arrested for that could post bail, then jump bail back to Canada, and that would be the end of it.
Once they are in Canada, they are beyond the reach of the police in Detroit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless, y’know, Canada agrees to extradite the offender. Or did you forget that was a thing that could happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Arrest warrants are computerized. To avoid extradtion, all you would have to do is break into law enforcement computer networks and erase the warrants for your arrest.
Arrest warrants are all on computers, so once the warrants are erased, that is the end of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…and not get caught doing it, which is far harder than you seem to think it is, given how you’re suggesting “erasing warrants from law enforcement computer systems” as a seemingly easy solution to the specific problem of stealing a car from a police impound lot and driving across the border to avoid arrest and extradition. I mean, your “solution” alone would add at least one CFAA violation and an obstruction of justice charge to the grand theft auto charge, and that’s assuming prosecutors don’t find other charges to stack on top of those between arrest, extradition, and trial.
(Next time you want to be facetious and allegedly funny, don’t bother. I’m sure someone laughed when you said you’d be a comedian one day, but I guarantee that no one’s laughing now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Naw, they'll just shoot you as you're trying to retrieve your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not if you throw the incim8natimg computer into Lake St Clair and deep six the evidence.
Without that incriminating computer that cannot bring a ctaa charge,
Lake st Clair is not that far detroit, so easy to ditch the incriminating computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not if you do the computer break in from Canada
The ctaa does not apply in Canada
Also there is no sarbanes oxley in canada, so you not he breaking any laws there by, say, throwing the computer in Lake St Clair, on the canadian side
And sarbanes oxley does not apply in Canada, so you cannot he charged in the United States for throwing the evidence into Lake St Clair on.yhe Canadisj side of the lake, where american law would not spply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a way not to get caught
If you know SQL, sd I do, you can break in to the database backend, where there are no logs
The server level database can be hacked.
All the popular server level databases have the flaw of not having logging, making them vulnerable.
That is why i am careful of where use my credit cards online. Someome with SQL skills did steal one of my card numbers in 2009 and ran up a $600 bill.im Disneyland
Whoever stole my card number could he caught because they came in through the database backend because they were able to bypass logging using the database backend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You seem awfully eager to both admit to crimes and teach people how to commit crimes. Perhaps Mike should pass along your IP address to the Feds, see if maybe they want to have a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have not admitted to commiting crimes, and merely talking about about how certain things can be done does not break any laws.
Giving information does not make it illegal.
Giving information on SQL databases and the like is not illegal.
Avdocating that someone steal their stuff back from asset forfetiture is not illegal.
Since I have not yet committed any of those crimes, I cannot be arrested
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am merely telling people how they should avoid asset seize
Giving information on how to do thigngs, such as breaknig into database backends is not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, that SQL database hack is known to merely ever hacker out there. I am not giving away any big secrets by mentioning the SQL database backend, as ever hacker worth their salt knows about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Giving information in the context of teaching people how to break the law, on the other hand…well, again, maybe that’s something for the Feds to look into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And once again, that flaw is known to every hacker worth his or her salt, so pointing out that flaw is not a crime because it is well known
Even the feds have done that when they want to trace someone without the 4th amendment getting on the way,
They can break in to the database backend on any forum to get what they want and the board administrators would never know the feds were in their system because the popular database backend have no logging, so the feds' presence would never be detected by the board's administrators.
The feds likely did that to wikileaks before they indicted julian Assange, and he would never know the feds were in his network. The feds could have done that and Julian Assange would have never detected the presence the feds in his network.
And you can bet they did that to Hal turner before they arrested him.
They could have broken into the MySQL backend on his website, and he would have never detected that the feds were in his system because MySQL does not have any logging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But not to everyone, and if you’re telling people to steal cars out of police impound lots, drive to Canada to avoid arrest, and break into law enforcement computer systems for the sole purpose of erasing official extradition orders and arrest records and such…maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe teaching the flaw in that context is, once again, something you should be reported to the Feds for doing. Because what you’d be doing is not just advocating for illegal activity, but teaching people how to commit that illegal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
12 years ago I used to make posts telling people how to avoid the cuba travel ban, specifically for usa/whateher dual nationals, not living in the usa, such as using their other passport and avoiding any us connecting.
I had threats then to report me to the feds, but the feds never came knocking at my door
Giving instructions.on how expats abroad could evade the travel ban did not break any laws, which my the feds never came knocking at.my door
Even if they did, I was using Evidence Eliminator back then, so any forensic examination.of my computer would have yielded no usable evidence. No evidence,
Pubishing that information on cuba travel.did jot break any laws though a few hard line Miami exiles thought it did
So that shows that giving information does not break the laws because this hard line miami exile called for my prosecution and the feds never came knocking at my door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The computer break in I speaking of would committed in canada, so the cfaa would not apply
Since it would be canada, in this scenario, only Canadian law would apply. Crimes committed in canada are under canadiam jurisdiction, so the cfaa does not apply in this case.
Prosecution would be up the Canadian government, as the feds have jurisdiction over something that took place in canada.
A canadian citizen whi.commits a crime in Canada is only subject prosecution in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool, so Mike should report you to Canadian authorities on suspicion of violating Canadian governmental computer systems and erasing evidence of crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My phone has a highly secure feature on it, as all android 6.0 and above phones have.
All would have to do is make sure the phone wa switched off before handing my phone over to an LEO if he decided to seize it.
This secure mode prevents android from even starting unless you enter your password, locking investigators out of your phone, because not only are the prevented from being able to start your phone, all the contents of your phone are encrypted where they would not be able to access them.
The only thing the boys at cop shop could do is throw your phone in the trash, because they would not be able to even start the operating system without the password, effectively bricking the phone.
Knowing now that cops can seize your phone in civil forfeiture that is what I will be doing.on road teips
The second a cop puts his lights on me, I will quickly switch my phone off, so.that if it is seized, the boys at the cop shop will not be able to access it because of the password stopping them from accessing my phone.
I like to take road trips all over north America, and there is no criminal statute in Alaska, canada, mexico, or any central American country I can ne prosecuted under for locking investigators out of my phone in that manner.
In other words they could not come and arrest me later on for locking them out of my phone with that password.
There is no criminal staute anywhere in the Americas I could be prosecuted under for locking investigators out of my phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locking investigators out of your phone is not a crime
There is no law in any of Canada's 13 provinces, America's 50 states, Mexico's 31 states or at the federal level in canada, mexico, or the united states that makes it s crime to lock investigators out of your phone by setting a password that prevents investigators from accessing your when they turn it on when they get it back to the cop shop
That means they cannot come back and arrest you later on if they cannot access your phone. You cannot be charged with.a crime because you made your phone to where it will not even start without that password.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If and when new independence movement ever happens, it will.be easubyo evade us law enforcement depending on.your citizenship
If California, oregon, and Washington became the Republic Of Pacifica, a Pacifican citizen could cross the border into Pacifica and be beyond the reach of us authorities
This is because the Pacifican constitution would forbid the Pacifican government from handing over its citizens to any country for any reason, so a Pacifican citizen could not be extradited from Pacifica, if it were in existence now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simple, just take over Canada in a Coup d'etat and declare that Canada will no longer honour extradition treaties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now calling brt to the thin blue line courtesy phone. Now calling brt to the thin blue line courtesy phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's such a clear conflict of interest. Would they be so fast to seize property if the funds went to the public defender's office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not a chance, in fact odds are good they wouldn't be stealing anything if they knew they not only wouldn't get a cent but they'd be helping people they accused defend themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as ERAD devices go, where they can suck the money out of your bank account using your bank card, two banks now allow your the turn your bank card on and off at will.
US Bank, where I bank, now has that option. While that option is meant to be used if your card is lost of stolen, you can use that to defeat ERAD devices, if you are travelling through a state that uses them.
You just "turn off" your cards while travelling through Oklahoma or Tennessee (the two states that now use them), and if a LEO pulls you over and demands to scan your card, he/she will not get anything, and it will look like an invalid card, and that LEO will never be the wiser.
Both Wells Fargo and US Bank now have that feature. While it is meant to deactivate your cards if lost of stolen, it can be used to defeat ERAD readers as well, because of the card is "turned off", the ERAD machines will be able to use them either. And any LEO scanning your cards in his or her ERAD devices will have no clue that you turned your cards off,
Amd US Bank also does that with their credit cards as well, so an LEO cannot max out your credit cards either.
So for travelling, I recommend a US Bank credit card to use when travellling. You can turn it off when travelling through Oklahoma or Tennessee, and it will look like an invalid card to any LEO who scans it.
Using this feature to defeat ERAD devices is not currently a criminal offense in eiher Oklahoma or Tenenssee to use the on/off feature of either US Bank or Wells Fargo, to prevent an LEO from being able to either get your balance or seize your funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congratulations, you have discovered a way of making cops suspicious, so I hope you like walking because they have seized you car, and all you electronics, and any cash you has on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How could an LEO possiby know your were using a service to turn off your card. It will look like an invalid card
Second, if they take my electronics, all I will have to do is get to the Internet as soon as possible and log on to Android Device Manager and then send a command to wipe all my devies to make them usless to them.
Android, 6.0 or alter has it where if certain kinds of resets are done, the phone cannot be use again with your Google password. One the wipe/reset command is
sent thy will be unable to use or get anything off of my phone without my Google password. I will have effectively "bricked" my devices where they will be of no use to them.
That feature can be very useful if cops ever seize your phone. You can remotely brick your phone to make it useless to police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That feature of requiring your Google password was originally designed for parents or employers who use monitoring software.
Before Android 6.0, a child or an employee could do a "hard" reset and defeat control or monitoring software, which is why the requirement for a Google password when either a hard reset was done, or a remote wipe was sent.
When it it meant to stop children or employees from using the phone, it can be useful if an LEO ever seizes your device. Once that remote wipe is sent, the LEO who seized your phone will not be able to use it without knowing your Google password, and by the time I did that, I would be in the next state over. I would get to the nearest phone store, buy a new phone, and then send the command to wipe my seized devices, but I would do it from the next state over.
Oklahoma law, for example, would not apply in Texas. The Oklahoma authorities could not prosecute me for wiping my devices from Texas. And since I would not be breaking Texas law by wiping seized devices that were in Oklahoma, I could not be arrested in Texas.
Android 6.0 has an encryption mode that when the phone is wiped, so is the decryption key, so law enforcement forensic tools will only find a bunch of encrypted jibberish they cannot decrypt becuase the key was lost when the phone was wiped.
Like I said, encryption plus the requirement for Google password to set the phone up again after it is wiped is very handy if the cops ever seize your phone. Since the cops would not know your Google password, your phone would be useless they them, and they only thing they could with it is to throw it in the trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They do not have to know anything about you, or have any actual evidence of a crime, they just have to decide whether or not they will take your stuff. If they are trying to empty your cards, and find them invalid, that are likely to leave you with just your clothes at the side of the road out, as revenge for not being able to get your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take my car, fine
Take my cash on me, fine
Take my luggage of electronics, I will take them back. Modern cellphones have GPS location where I can track where my phone is. Then I just go to wherever took my eletronics and/or luggage, break in and take my luggage and electronics back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And get shot while breaking into a police station. Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if grab his gun away from him he can shoot you
To avoid being shot, you take his gim away from.jom by force so he cant use it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course if he told me he was going to seize my car,, I would immediately get back in my car and take ofr and run from him.
If your car can exceed 140 miles am hour, you can outrun Ford police cruisers, which Ford speed limits to 140
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another option is to jam the ERAD device.
ERAD devices are part 15 devices that use the cellular internet in the patrol car.
Becuase ERAD is a part 15 device, it is not against FCC rules to jam it, because it is not illegal under FCC rules to jam part 15 devices, since part 15 devices have to accept whatever interference come to that.
While I do expect Oklahoma and Tennessee to make a STATE law someday against jamming ERAD devices, jamming ERAD does not break federal law, becuase current FCC rules do not make jamming part 15 devices illegal, becuase part 15 devices have to accept whatever interference comes to it.
That is why some radar/lidar guns are illegal to jam, and others are not, If the radar/lidar gun is a part 15 device, jamming it does not break FCC rules, though you can get a ticket and points on your record for using such a device in California, Oklahoma, Oregon, Idaho and Texas. Part 15 devices are not illegal to jam in the United States, but jamming it does not break federal law it it is a part 15 device.
And the cop would have no clue his ERAD device was being jammed, it would appear to him be a malfunction. It would just simply not be able to connect to the Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another type of jammer that is not illegal, is one I have used in hotels, to prevent "voyeurs" from being able to video me in the bathroom.
Some nefarious people do put such hidden cameras in things like vents.
Since these spy cameras are are part 15 devices, I am not breaking FCC rules when jam them, as part 15 devices have to accept whatever interfrence comes from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could see banks, someday, programming their computers to detect and automatically decline any transaction that came from an ERAD device.
If I were running a bank, that is exactly what would happen. If I were the head of the bank company, I would instruct IT staff to program the bank's computers to detect and automatically decline anything coming from an ERAD device.
I would love the see the faces of Oklahoma or Tenessee state troppers when cards issued by any bank I ran did not work, when the bank's computers declined the transactions.
And I would make that a selling point to people to open accounts at that bank, lletting them know that the bank's computers were programmed to automaticaly decline any transaction from any ERAD devices. Any card from any bank that I ran would not even show the transaction. I would make my customers' accounts inaccessible to ERAD machines.
And of the either the State Of Oklahma State Troopers or the Tennessee Highway Patrol did not like that, I will tell them to kiss my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I would actually do, if I were running a bank, hasve the IT staff program the computers to lie about bank balances anytime an ERAD device connected to the systenm. it someone, say, had $1million, the computer would lie and give, say, a $200,000 balance, so the customer would not lose everything. I would have the computers device the balance by 5 whenever an ERAD device connected, and the LEO using the ERAD device would never be the wiser, because he could only go on what his ERAD device told him.
Doing that to fool ERAD devices does break any laws, so none of my stuff, if I were running a bank, could be arrested for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That should have said staff and not stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most cops now carry Faraday bags in their patrol cars and put seized phones into them, which prevent any transmission of electronic signals into or out of the bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Other things to do with your is is clear data on any apps you dont an LEO to access, if they require authentication, and them you invoke your 5th amendment rights, if they demand your login credentials for things like banking apps.
Under the 5th amendment they cannot make you talk.
I do that on road trips. I use clear data on all.my apps, so that if.my phone is ever seized, the cops will not be able to access things like social.media or banking apps
This is totally legal to do, so a cop cannot arrest you for doing that. There is no law that makes it a crime to clear saved passwords so a cop cannot access your acccounts of he seizes your phone.
There is no law in.any of the 50 states that makes illegal to temporarily deactivate your cards to prevent a cop ftom.using an erad to take your money.
While they might be able to seize your car, they cannot arrest for it. There is no law that makes it criminal offense to turn your card off to deny their erad machines access to.your cards. They might be able to seize your stuff but they cannot put you in jail for foiling erad like that.
There is no law that says you have to allow erad to access your accounts so even if they seize your stuff, there is criminal statute you can charged under for 0l foiling erad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is totally legal to do, so a cop cannot arrest you for doing that. There is no law that makes it a crime to clear saved passwords so a cop cannot access your acccounts of he seizes your phone. "
You'd probably wish he simply arrested you. The cop can simply invoke civil forfeiture and leave you in your underpants.
After which, assuming you manage to regain access to cash somehow, said cop simply does it again. Or follows you home and empties the place of every appliance from toaster to fridge, leaving you with the dinner option of catching, plucking and eating a pigeon or raccoon - with your bare hands.
Civil forfeiture basically means that if a cop decides he wants something of yours or feels the need to deprive you of it out of spite then he can simply take it and walk away.
At the end of which you may wish you had given the cop something to arrest you over because at least in the slammer you'll get fed and have a cot to sleep on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You dont have to let them in your house without a search warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I live in california, so a Oklahoma or Tennessee could not come to my apartment in California to take my household items.
Plus, the stove and fridge are property of the management company, so they cannot legally take those
If I were the manager and I saw that cop come take anything from any of my tenants like that. I would refuse to refuse to open.the gate for him, this a gated property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I talking about is after they take my phone tp.the station and try to examine it.
What I am saying is that the password data for.mu accounts has been cleared and they could not access my accounts, they could come later on sm arrest me because no law would have been byoken.
There is no criminal staute investigators could have me arrested under after they phone to the station and tried to examine it if they were unable to access any of my accounts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, the way it works, the command to wipe the phone would be invoked when it came out the faraday bag and it got a network connection again.
That will brick the phone and make it useless, because they would need your google account password to access the phone. They would just have throw the phone in the trash and close the investigation
It is designed that way so that if a thief turns the phone off or uses faraday bag, the wipe command will be invoked the next time the phone connects to.the network.
And doing this does not break any laws, so investigators could not have you arrested later on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they take the electronics back to the cop shop, where they go into a shielded room, and only then are they taken out of the bag and worked on safe from outside interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Android 6.0 and up has a password mode that can encrypted mode that prevents the phone from even starting. If the phone is turned off when you hand it over to the cop, investigators back at the cop shop will not be able to start your phone without that password.
And this is totally legal. There is no law in any of the 50 states that makes it a crime to lock the cops out of your phone in that manner.
How it works is that if your phone is in that mode, not only will Android not start unless the password is entered, the contents of the phone are encrypted and cannot be accessed unless they have the password to start your phone, rendering any attempt at forensic analysis useless. As long as the phone is switched off when the cop takes it, you cannot be arrested for it.
And, like I said, it is totally legal and they cannot come back later and arrest you for locking them out of your phone with that password.
Even Sarbanes Oxley, at the federal level, does not make it a crime. If they enconter a password where they cannot start or decrypt your phone, they still cannot arrest you for using a password on your phone. If it were illegal, Androids and iPhones would not have password protection on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is another solutuion to ERAD which a cop cannot hold your resposbile for
Use a bank that has a daily charge limit on your card.
I recmmend banking with US Bank becuase of their $1,000 a day limit on all charges, and that would include ERAD machines.
If a cop entered an amount over your daily limit, or whatever was left of it after purchasing stuff on the card, the transaction would be declined, via US Bank's policies.
He would see a bigger balance, but he would not be able to take any more than $1000, or whatever was left on your daily limit.
That is US Bank's policy, and a trooper in Oklahoma or Tennessee with an ERAD machine cannot hold you responsbile for US Bank's policies. If US Bank's policies do not allow him to get anymore than what is left on your daily charge limit, that is just his tough luck. There is nothing that cop could do about US Bank policies. As the saying goes, rules are rules, and if that cop does not US Bank's policy of more than $1,000 a day he could get from an ERAD machine, tough titties.
So I recommend banking wit US bank, if you do a lot of driving in the South, to limit the damage that ERAD machines can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anothjer solutiopn is to keep the bulk of your money in a savings account.
ERAD can only touch checking accounts. All debits come from your checking account. ERAD cannot touch your savings account Even if you are allowed to use the card to withdraw from savings accounts, the ERAD device can only run the charge from your checking.
Only keep enough in that account, while travelling, to take of of daily expenses like gas and hotel, while travelling, and just transfer funds in from your savings acoount as you need them.
That is another way to limit the damge from an ERAD machine, as Mastercard, Visa, and Amex debit cards, which are the bulk of debit cards out there, will only allow any debits to come from your checking account, so the cop will neither be able to see your savings account balance, or take anything out of it.
Because Mastercard, VISA, and Amex debit cards only allow charges to come from a checking account, your savings accounts will be safe, as the cop will not be able to touch them with his ERAD machine.
So put the bulk of your money in your savings accont while travelling, to limite what a cop can take with his ERAD machines. All he will be able to see and take is what is in your checking account, he will not be able to touch your savings account that way that Visa, MasterCard, and Amex debit cards work. That is one way to put one over on that cop he will never figure out,.
And only carrry credit cards with you that have a low credit limit, so that if he maxes out your card, it will be faster to pay off and will not damage your credit score, as the credit beaureaus do not like high debt to credit ratios.
Just apply for a card with a low limit, say, $500.
All of this will linit was he can take with with his ERAD machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ERAD has changed.
Instead of using an erad device now, cops now use either a PC, tablet, or mobile phone logging on to the website now.
All you need now to prevent your cards from from being jammed is a jammer that jams wireless internet.
When the cop tries to get on internet his browser will.just say there is no internet connection.
While jamming data does not steal federal law, it might break state laws, so keep that jammer well hidden
There is one jammer I saw on the web that has 7 watts output and jam up to 50 meters away, and enough power to keep it out of sight, and still jam the data connections on his pc, phone or tablet and the cop will never have any idea you are using a jammer as his browser will.just say there is no internet,
With the change in erad, I cam see the market for jammers that jam data but not voice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more reason to avoid Michigan [and the USA]
From USA Today:
"The U.S. drop in market share [of international tourism] is now forecast to slip further to 10.9% by 2022, amounting to another 41 million fewer foreign tourists. Under that scenario, travelers would spend $180 billion less and there would be 266,000 fewer jobs than if the U.S. maintained its market share.9 Aug 2019"
US leadership is missing the big picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more reason to avoid Michigan [and the USA]
That had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Don’t get me wrong; US leadership often misses the big picture (especially under the Trump administration), but I’m not really seeing that claim as a tremendous issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more reason to avoid Michigan [and the USA]
All this is making the US a whole lot less interesting to visit again for me. I'm sure I can live without going to America again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Robert Camaro should have done was go home, get on the Internet, and send a command, via Android Device Manager to wipe his phones and make them useless to police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Euphemisms, Expediency and Profit
Michigan County Sued For Stealing Cars From Innocent Car Owners Via Civil Forfeiture
Enough with hiding behind euphemisms.
The time is long past to start calling these types of outrageous governments actions by their true name(s).
These are not a cases of Civil Forfeiture they are cases of outright theft Via criminals wearing suits (ie DA) and government issued costumes (ie police) aided/abetted by kangaroo courts staffed by court jesters (ie judges) who have completely forsworn their oaths of office in the name of expediency and profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Euphemisms, Expediency and Profit
"These are not a cases of Civil Forfeiture they are cases of outright theft Via criminals wearing suits (ie DA) and government issued costumes (ie police) aided/abetted by kangaroo courts staffed by court jesters (ie judges) who have completely forsworn their oaths of office in the name of expediency and profit."
Welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being government sponsored does not make those thefts by the police any better than the ones perpetrated by criminals. I'm honestly surprised that cops aren't getting shot more on those asset forfeiture happy areas. I'm baffled at the dishonest logic at play by the state. Did they go look at thieves and their ill gotten wealth and go "you know what? We can do one better than that and convert the cops into thieves while reaping the profits."
I guess they don't consider the loss of trust and cooperation from the citizens a big enough downside or the fact that they are getting sued to the point of mooting any profits. Worst of all is that the victims of this police thefts fall on hard times putting more strain on the states social programs, taking away any profit made by the seizures and converting them to bigger expenses elsewhere in the state's budget. Pensions for the surviving families of any dead cops resulting from those bogus seizures already negate any small upside asset forfeiture might bring to fighting crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Possible Glitch in Recovery of State-Stolen Property
U.S. Supreme Court has approved such things, in Michigan even. Tina A. Bennis v. State of Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (04-Mar-1996).
I am not saying the court got it right, and certainly not saying that either the reasoning or result are tolerable in a supposedly free society in which property rights are respected. I am just saying that there may be a hurdle to be overcome here.
In Bennis, an offender was convicted, though the innocent owner was not even aware of the use to which the car was put. The cases cited therein show that conviction was not necessary. All that was really needed was that the innocent owner have notice of the seizure and some sort of opportunity to object after the fact.
It may be that the lack of conviction will finally become a real obstacle to seizure from innocent owners, but I would not hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cases like this greatly damage the authority of the police. I would recommend writing down the VIN number and checking your vehicle history here. This may help in situations like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]