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 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 ]