Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by SixSigma on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @12:02PM (#11863162)

I guess married mothers, non-sick people and secular bands would all be fair game.

Shouldn't this just be "Citizens robbed by police".

In India at least they have the decency to say "Do you have a gift for me?" so you know what's happening.

My dad would pretend to be hard of hearing and deliberately misunderstand ad nauseum until waved on his way, this would happen about once a month while going about his lawful business.

He even gatecrashed a police function and got himself a picture shaking hands with the Chief of Police. He kept the photo in the vehicle so he could produce it and attempt to start up a conversation as though they were great friends.

This is a country where the guards of the police armoury were bribed with $5 to allow weapons to be removed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by Roboprog on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @12:16PM (#11863298)

I'm pretty sure the speaker was trying to point out a few examples which he thought the audience would sympathize were unlikely to be threats or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.

Of course all of these forfeitures stink of illegality, regardless of the victim. Forth Amendment? Never heard of it, apparently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by SixSigma on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @12:22PM (#11863359)

Yes, undoubtedly that was the idea. But "Vulnerable person exploited" is really less of a story than "police rob citizens". You could add "at gunpoint" to bait it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by jandrese on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @12:41PM (#11863531)

I'm sure they're going to use that bullshit legal reasoning that because the money committed the crime, the money itself can be held responsible and seized, and money doesn't have 4th amendment protections because it's not a person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by tremon on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:01PM (#11863706)

Yet if it's not a person, it can't be convicted of a crime either. Has a dog ever been charged for biting, instead of its owner?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by SixSigma on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @03:16PM (#11864804)

Lots of times, plenty also found guilty, including a swarm of crickets who were excommunicated.

http://www.wired.com/2014/09/fantastically-wrong-europes-ins...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by jandrese on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:23PM (#11863877)

What makes you think money can't be put on trial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by tremon on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:25PM (#11863900)

Oh I'm aware of that. I was pointing out the logical inconsistency between "not a person, so no 4th amendment" and "not a person, so no case"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by cmdrfred on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:51PM (#11864104)

There is no logic here. The 4th amendment clearly states papers are protected, cash is paper. It's protected no matter what retarded logic you use.

[ Parent | on HN ]