Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money

docdeek

On the figures in the article: 62,000 seizures, half under $8800, total of $2.5 billion. Doing some rough calculations, assume 31,000 seizures of $8000 and that’s a total of $248 million. That leaves the other half of the seizures to make up the remaining $2.25 billion, or an average of more than $70,000 per seizure.

Is it typical in the US to carry cash in the tens of thousands of dollars? While I understand some people are unbanked, surely it is possible to open a bank account if you have tens of thousands to deposit. Leaving aside whether it is legal to seize the money or whether it is ethical to do so, is there a good reason why you would choose to walk around with, say, $100,000 in cash instead of a bank cheque or a a plastic card?

chucksta

It is not typical to get into multiple 10s. Generally speaking you'd only use that kinda cash in a private transaction, some people just find it more appealing in a deal. One less thing to "go wrong" I guess.

There generally isn't a good reason and that's most of the logic to the forfeiture. Its not in the bank because someone didn't want to disclose were it came from (required in deposits in more than 10k USD).

Volundr

Off the top of my head my understanding is a lot of collectables traded at shows (e.x. sneakers, antiques, cardsa) are done as cash transactions, so that could be one possible reason. If someone is an avid collector, or makes a living trading this stuff they could be going to a show with a large amount of cash in anticipation of buying.

(Not my world, so I welcome being corrected here)

RajT88

Yeah, swap meets for computers or musical instruments may involve cash deals large enough where police would liberate you from your spending money.

But - as I like to point out - what is a suspicious amount of money depends on who you are. A huge number of cash seizures are on the order of hundreds of dollars or less than 100 in poor neighborhoods.

potato3732842

The whole "they're fishing for cash" is missing the point.

They're fishing for literally anything. They don't care whether it's cash, drugs, paperwork violations. It's all money in state coffers at the end of the day. It just makes the news when they seize some sympathetic person's cash. You don't hear about all the innocent people who get railroaded on DUI charges and come out $10k poorer because of it (I specifically use this example because many states and municipalities have had scandals to this tune). The fact that the cash seizures are blatantly unconstitutional just makes them marketable to the public but the root problem is that the police (as organizations more than individuals) see the public as people who's pockets ought to be lightened and they have no moral qualms about engaging in "scummy but legal" means to do so.

adolph

For me, the original eye-opener about civil forfeiture was this NYT Mag article from 1994. Hard to believe it has been so long since I first read it as the sense of unfairness and suspicion of government it delivered to me is still fresh.

  SULPHUR [Louisiana], POPULATION 20,552, ILLUSTRATES THE transforming power of civil 
  forfeiture. It is a modest Southern town with one main drag, but at its north 
  end stands a modernistic new office building. Outside its tinted windows and 
  trim lawn, the well-swept Tarmac is crowded with rows of gleaming 
  blue-and-white cruisers and sporty unmarked coupes, many of them equipped 
  with video cameras and computers. The building, cars and gear all belong to 
  the Sulphur Police Department.
  
  The day after my run-in with the drug-interdiction cops, I talk with Keith 
  Andrus, supervisor of investigations for Sulphur's narcotics division. How 
  does Sulphur manage to pay for the Police Department's new building, the cars 
  and computers?
  
  Andrus smiles and points to a framed news item on the wall: "Traffic 
  Violation Yields Police $532,100." An inset photo shows Andrus with a fellow 
  officer beaming from behind a table heaped with stacks of cash. Typically, a 
  speeder is pulled aside. When a lot of cash is found on him and his 
  explanation is suspect, a drug dog is summoned. If the dog smells narcotics, 
  the police seize the money. Because dollar bills are routinely used for 
  packaging and sniffing cocaine, and the minutest trace of the drug will 
  "infect" other bills, much of the currency in the country now tests positive 
  for narcotics.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/11/magazine/the-law-goes-on-...

OutOfHere

Switch partially to Monero as it leaves no trace.

josefritzishere

civil forfiture is an increasingly popular scam run by local PDs. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/chart-day-civ...

CSMastermind

Yeah, this is a piece of law that needs to be rectified.

theGeatZhopa

how can this even be legal - in the land of the free? Lol. Hope Trump will fix that.

dullcrisp

Sure would be nice.

epsilonaurigae

the current US president’s DOJ (under Jeff Sessions) reinstated civil asset forfeiture in 2017, during Trump’s first term.

https://www.npr.org/2017/07/19/538148867/justice-department-...

It had been briefly paused by Barack Obama’s DOJ. But that’s a mixed situation because there was an astonishing amount of these seizures under Obama, and it was only in his last year in office - and after extensive coverage and reporting on this by Wapo and others in 2014 - that the DOJ paused it.

Sessions and Trump brought it right back.

While it was (at the end of the day) Obama’s DOJ, the decision to withdraw the practice was probably done independently by his DOJ, so I’m not going as far as crediting or blaming him personally.

Trump , on the other hand, went as far as appearing on TV with a bunch of deputies to talk about how wonderful asset forfeiture was and how good it was to have it back. Then took it one further and openly threatened a lawmaker who was opposed to it on CSPAN on the same visit.

I don’t have the first clip im referring to, it’s insanely bad optics but, the second one is on CSPAN and wapo covered it. (Paywalled):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/07/trump...

josefritzishere

Sorry to report, Trump's last administration was wildly enthusiastic about ramping up civil forfiture.

null

[deleted]