Comment by blindriver

Comment by blindriver 4 days ago

24 replies

How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point? It’s one of the most disgusting corrupt things I’ve seen in my lifetime any I can’t believe both parties support this.

sneak 4 days ago

Everyone viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the state has stopped using cash, so leaving this in place as an additional risk to carrying or using cash is a nice bonus in the war against financial privacy and freedom.

One more nail in the coffin of being able to transact in ways either unknown to or unapproved by the state.

In 2011 I spoke at the CCC about why it’s essential to have free and censorship-resistant payments that the state cannot veto:

https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...

Always use and carry cash. Always tip in cash. Don’t do business with places that don’t accept cash. Store some cash in your home and your car (hidden) for emergencies.

tdb7893 4 days ago

I can believe it. Both parties are pretty "law and order" and rely on relationships with the police. Why piss off an important group of people for an issue that isn't going to sway any votes.

Reform here is something which would presumably have a large amount of support but that's enough to get a law passed or the US would look very different, there are tons of popular things that will never be laws.

potato3732842 3 days ago

Same reason it took half a century for every other rights violation to get in front of a court that matters. The agencies and governments violating people's rights play all sorts of games to prevent it so that they can keep the gravy train rolling.

AngryData 4 days ago

Corruption is a large part of what funds our criminal justice system, and politicians will never do anything to make them appear like they are against law enforcement or "soft on crime".

StefanBatory 3 days ago

First party who would propose it would lose support for cops/justice system workers.

JumpCrisscross 4 days ago

> How has civil forfeiture not been ruled illegal at this point?

Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals? I’m almost ready to PAC an elected prosecutor who commits to taking a test case to SCOTUS.

  • dragonwriter 4 days ago

    > Isn’t part of the problem prosecutors dropping cases before they make it through appeals?

    Not really, cases on civil forfeiture do make it to the US Supreme Court, the most recent case being decided in 2024.

    • _DeadFred_ 3 days ago

      Cases the prosecutors think they can win make it. But OPs statement is valid, prosecutors can just drop any case they fear will set a precedent and under our system that is the end of the discussion. OPs point is it gives prosecutors an additional thumb on the scale when it come to court oversight.

nadermx 4 days ago

If you ever watch the series "The wire" you might have a sense as to why

  • aziaziazi 4 days ago

    I read that as "those who watch it already know".

    Could you or someone else share what’s shown in that series? I’m not willing to devote dizains hours to have that answer.

    • AnthonyMouse 4 days ago

      The Wire is about the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is responsible for probably 75% of the shockingly oppressive laws still on the books, with most of the balance being the War on Terror.

    • defrost 4 days ago

      There's a scene in which an aide for a city politician is stopped leaving known drug dealing actors and the car is found to have bag stuffed with a large amount of cash which is seized.

      The point moving forward is will anybody claim the cash and offer an explanation as to where it came from.

      The above "you'll know why" appears to carry an implicit "because all cash with no receipt is criminal proceeds".

      The problem with that is stories abound of Police seizing cash and other assets and keeping them, spending money, auctioning goods, etc that were never criminal proceeds .. or rather never proved to be criminal proceeds.

      • Sohcahtoa82 4 days ago

        Okay, but there's a world of difference between a large amount of cash that nobody wants to claim because police know it's drug money versus an innocent person that the police have stolen money from without any true suspicion and the person has been fighting in the courts for years to get their money back.

        • defrost 4 days ago

          I fully agree, but I'm merely the person that expanded on the lazy The Wire comment above.

          @blindriver was correct (IMHO) to rail against civil forfeiture and @nadermx responded with a low effort opaque un-HN worthy quip.

  • moomin 4 days ago

    The Wire is a great show, but it’s still copaganda. Dude managed to create a five year show set in the Baltimore Police Department without mentioning racism once.

    • potato3732842 3 days ago

      Reminds me of the time Frontline(?) had some cameras following around the Newark drug task force (post scandal so they knew to be on their best behavior) and they couldn't hold it together long enough to make enough footage hour or so episode. They initiated a baseless stop and frisk on camera and then dogpiled the guy when he said to leave him alone.

db48x 4 days ago

It has its roots in something very necessary: disposal of abandoned property, especially illegal goods for which no owner can be identified. Of course it has gotten slightly out of hand.

  • Dylan16807 4 days ago

    But most abandoned property doesn't go through that process, does it?

    • db48x 4 days ago

      Garbage found at the side of the street, no. A bag of heroin found in an abandoned building, certainly.

      • Dylan16807 3 days ago

        My point is, it really takes the "need" out of the situation.

        We have perfectly good ways to handle lost items without forfeiture. Using those systems, the confiscation problem disappears. And if anyone claims a bag of heroin the same way they would claim a lost phone... let them. Then arrest them after they do that.