What's worse is they don't even need a shred of evidence to take your stuff.

In some states, having more than $10,000 in cash on your person is automatically considered "evidence of criminal activity". That means that the police, just by seeing that you have more than $10k in cash, can simply seize it and then force you to spend your time and additional money proving that the money didn't come from crime.

And, of course, every cent of the cash they take goes to their own department, so they are incentivized to look for cash during traffic stops just so they can literally commit highway robbery...

It's also not unusual for an officer to record that they found $15k in cash, only for the person they seized it from to call foul, stating that they had more. Since there is literally nothing protecting the citizen in this situation, they are left without any legal remedy, and the cop gets to pocket your cash for his own illicit purposes.

This is a system that encourages corruption with the justification of profit.

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop:

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

From the article:

    > "calculated ignorance of illegal
    > activity is not an acceptable excuse"

I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.

By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons?

Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no?

It's a slippery slope..

A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.

No. The guy in the article wasn't prosecuted for every hidden compartment he made, just the ones he made that he was well aware were going to be used for illegal activity. Just like guns, the vast majority of them won't be used for anything illegal, even though some of them will be. But the moment you knowingly and willingly facilitate criminal activity, you become a party to the crime. That's true with guns, secret compartments, candy bars, or anything else.

That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime.

The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys.

This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava wearing gentleman exiting a bank, claiming that you had no idea you were helping with a robbery. Perhaps they're just really ugly businessmen in a hurry? Would that mean nobody could drive a Taxi anymore? Of course not.

You were downvoted but you make a good point, and I think your example is better than mine.. Point taken.

as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...

Which states?

Ohio, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-...

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-...

https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-inves...

* http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartme...

* https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.

Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.

I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate.

I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.

And you were pulled over, and it was discovered?

I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.

You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.

A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first.

Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/

The stacks of cash with the ribbon and magnetic ink can be scanned for. Think of those plastic and metal ribbon security stickers stores use.

His main point was we don't have enough data for the 'very typically' label. To prove this, you need some sort of data.

Instead lostcolony was asking for evidence that this is not the case, implying that we should accept 'very typically' with no evidence, and expect proof of absence to change our minds.

Actually, no, I wasn't asking for evidence that this was not the case. I was asking for why we should treat djrogers' personal experience as evidence for why it isn't 'very typical'. Does his personal experience even match the criteria smrtinsert implied? And even if it does, why should we consider it, giving how few data points it is, of such poor sampling quality (given a single subject).

I was asserting nothing about how typical seizure is or isn't, just how poor djrogers' supplied anecdotal data was.

@lostcolony didn’t ask anyone to prove anything. I just read his comment; he merely asked for clarification.

Without a conclusive study, the only proven conclusion is that "large amounts of cash are sometimes seized, sometimes not". However, a study could reveal that this happens very typically, or not very typically (for some definition of typical). In either case, that is not proving a negative.

That's exactly my point. Stating that seizure is 'very typical' as fact, and if someone says you have no evidence, the retort shouldn't be "Prove it isn't."

No one said I had no evidence (the original statement for this subthread wasn't mine), and my retort wasn't "prove it isn't", but "your supplied anecdotal data is not actually helpful".

I totally agree the original post to this subthread supplied no data. That's obvious. But to counter it with badly qualified anecdotal evidence does nothing to actually counter it.

Did police ever search you, find that cash, and not take it? Congratulations on your privilege. Lots of other people, including those without bank accounts or other means of moving their wealth around, have lost money this way.

More than $10k in cash is considered "evidence of criminal activity" in many jurisdictions.

It's one thing to have a few bank envelopes with $10k in cash and a withdrawal receipt in a zip lock bag or something that's pretty obviously non-criminal. It's another thing to get pulled over in a $90/day rental with $15k hidden under a blanket in the trunk. The latter will almost always end up getting seized.

I hope, and if this applies to you maybe this will be a wake up call, nobody reading this walks around with lump sums of cash like this without a receipt from the ATM or bank teller. I hope not.

And how would that help? Playing policeman’s advocate, maybe you left half of what you just withdrew at home? How would you prove you were carrying the whole amount?

update, its now less than $5,000 and greater than $2,999...ever wonder why the debit/cc cards for poor can only have cash loaded on the card less than $2,999?

> You only really started to hear about Civil Forfeiture once the police started going too far and taking things from the wealthy or powerful

From my perspective it was more like police brutality: the internet and cameras were what made awareness mainstream by making it easy to spread (especially in areas where the local media has a credulous relationship with the police) and harder to dismiss.

Maybe so, but did you read the article? This is a person who the Government decided to do a forfeiture after a conviction. I'm glad the SCOTUS is looking at this because it seems to be adding additional penalties after a conviction. However, in the past additional penalties implemented after a conviction (like sex offender registries) have been upheld.

It's not a good thing SCOTUS is looking at a convicted drug dealer for a CAF case. If this gets upheld the bar to get another CAF case in front of the Court will be even higher, and police departments will continue stealing from citizens on the side of the highway with impunity.

I think this case is actually a really good one to look at, as there are clear 8th Amendment issues. He already was sentenced for the crime in question, but the asset seized has over 4x the value of the maximum fine for the crime he was guilty of.

How is that not "cruel or unusual" ? Also, it presents a hardship for his rehabilitation- he needs to have employment as terms of his release, and if he can't get to work because of the forfeiture of his means of transportation, that presents additional burden to holding up his end of the agreement.

He was handed a $40,000 penalty for a $250 crime because the law enforcement agency wanted to sell his Land Rover. How is that justice?

Incorrect application of civil forfeiture laws is one very good reason to have a digital currency. I'm not justifying its use for any illicit purposes but its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.

> its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.

If one became popular, what magic would prevent it from being added to the same software they use to extract other information from phones?

The magic of memory. They can't coerce you to divulge your password for your wallet.

The government is doing a nice business in seized bitcoin, thanks. http://bitcoinist.com/us-government-to-sell-over-2000-seized...

I didn't say the government couldn't seize bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, only that it is a lot less likely if you get pulled over for a traffic stop. If law enforcement conducts a raid or can otherwise prove someone has been using cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes they have every right to seize it.

> Incorrect application of civil forfeiture laws is one very good reason to

Those have their own drawbacks. Digital currency can often be tracked (not made to be anonymous). They might or might not have high currency fluctuations, security issues (could be even the device / site you're using), high transaction costs, etc.

If you already have cash it seems easier to just do a bank transfer (at least it is within most of Europe).

> Civil Forfeiture is essentially "guilty until proven innocent." And I don't mean that hyperbolically, I mean literally if the state takes property or cash under Civil Forfeiture you have to prove your property innocent to get it returned (via expensive civil litigation).

False generally, and specifically false for federal law forfeitures, where the burden is explicitly on the government to prove that the property is legally subject to forfeiture provided anyone with an interest in the property sized has asserted that interest.

If the property is subject to forfeiture (e.g., as an instrumentality of crime), the owner may still defeat forfeiture by establishing their own personal innocence, under the innocent owner rule: in this case the burden is on the owner, but this only comes into play when the property is proven subject to forfeiture. See, generally, 18 USC Sec. 983(c) and (d).

When the feds seize an asset they general do it via administrative forfeiture, which generally only requires probably cause. Once they seize it, the owner has 60 days to file a claim. If no claim is filed, the government keeps the asset.

If a claim is filed, the government can either pursue civil or criminal forfeiture. In the case of civil forfeiture there is a right to a trial by jury.

However, this isn't automatic. The person has to either have the legal knowledge to know how to file a claim, or they need a lawyer. In many cases no claim is filed because the legal fees necessary to recover the asset will be greater than the value of the asset.

Basically if the government sizes a few grand in cash, it will cost you too much to recover it to make it worth it. Also if you're not legally sophisticated, or too poor to pay a lawyer (and can't find free legal help), you're not going to get your money back.

And? Most civil forfeiture is from small town cops, not the feds. Yea your one type of case is less problematic, but the majority of real life cases are still guilty until proven innocent

Edit: additionally, what happens when the government doesn't follow the law? You bring them to court? That's still guilty until proven innocent unless there's a strong IG which is not the case

> And? Most civil forfeiture is from small town cops, not the feds

The significant civil forfeiture crisis has been driven by federal law forfeitures (particularly related to the War on Drugs), executed by local agencies, because federal law authorizes local agencies to conduct forfeitures and allows local agencies to keep (a share of) proceeds of such forfeitures, while most state forfeiture laws dedicate the proceeds of forfeitures to state general funds. This provides a strong incentive for local agencies to use federal law forfeitures as a revenue stream for the agency, an incentive which does not exist for state law forfeitures in most states.