Recent searches
Search options
Big props to Jeremy Saulnier who wrote and directed Rebel Ridge. Recommend.
The film covers so much of what is wrong with US policing, in an action packed drama movie. It also covers the evil and racism in the system vs the individual. I don't think a cop calls a Black person the N-Word once in the whole movie.
*Civil asset forfeiture
*Cash bail and prison violence
*Why Black folk don't give statements
*The power of sheriffs in small towns
*Violence of the war on drugs
I love that millions of people will watch the movie, and go:
Wait, the civil asset part is made up right?
No, that's totally real.
OK, but they can't just like, pull you over and take your money if you can prove that it's yours, right?No, they can.
OK, but like... that doesn't happen very often in real life right?No, it happens a lot. Cops steal more through civil asset forfeiture than all other forms of burglary combined. Mostly from poor Black folk, as depicted in the movie.
2/N
Forget Hollywood drama. Henry and Minh Chen are business owners in real life. They own a jewelry store. They made a legitimate purchase via cash. They mailed the cash to the seller via FedEx, because they could insure the package.
The money never arrived at the seller.
Because police in Indiana trained dogs to sniff for money instead of drugs. They then have the dogs sniff all the packages that go through the FedEx depot, and just... steal any cash that the dogs find
@mekkaokereke @dangillmor Not a comment to the specific case, but this amount of cash is in itself suspicious. No bank or financial institution could accept a deposit of even a fraction of this amount of cash without solid evidence it was legally obtained.
1) Can't accept a cash deposit of that amount? That's just not true. Many cash based businesses make deposits of that amount every week. A lot of trucks and cars are bought in cash. Many large Vegas winnings are paid out in cash. When you receive big cash, you make the deposit. The only requirement is that those deposits of more than $5K must be reported.
2) Suspicious doesn't mean the government gets to take the money. It means the government may investigate.
@denspier@mastodon.green@mekkaokereke @dangillmor 1) They absolutely can as long as there is a sufficient paper trail of where the cash comes from, so normally not a problem. But accepting large amounts of “anonymous” cash could lead to them being accused of assisting in money laundering. 2) I agree. But in general it’s reasonable the police can temporarily confiscate any excessively large stacks of cash until the owner provides sufficient prominence and a reasonable explanation why he has all that money in cash.
@dangillmor @denspier @mekkaokereke
2)You think it’s “reasonable” to overturn the principle of the presumption of innocence? …I don’t agree. Especially when this terrible law makes the police or the state the beneficiaries of their ‘suspicion’.
Why are so many people critical of policing in north america? Because so many people see that basic principles like the presumption of innocence have evaporated (or were never a thing if you are ‘suspicious’)
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke 2) No, I absolutely do not think it’s reasonable to overturn the presumption of innocence. Sorry if it it sounded like I do.
But on suspicion of crime I think it’s reasonable that the police can temporarily confiscate stuff, even cash, while investigating.
@dangillmor @denspier @mekkaokereke
But civil forfeiture laws are not about temporary custody of cash, they allow the permanent seizure of assets based only on suspicion, so civil forfeiture laws DO overturn the presumption of innocence. Regardless of the intent, they are very bad law, creating injustice even when applied properly, and ripe for abuse.
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke Now this interesting. I think we agree that a sack of cash found at a car search after a bank robbery is a clear case. And someone simply having saved up a lot of cash at home too. But when it gets fuzzy, like when an amount of cash large enough to be illegal to take out of the country is found at the airport? A man walking down the street with two paper bags full of cash with no explanation where he got them? When does suspicion justify an investigation?
“A man walking down the street with two paper bags full of cash with no explanation where he got them?”
Funny, but if I were to walk down the street with two paper bags full of cash, no one would likely question me, even to the point of discovering the cash.
*I* don’t need to account for my cash, why should anyone else need to?
Sorry, but your hidden biases aren’t so hidden. 
1/
One of the problems with policing is the idea that police magically know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.
2/f
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor Sorry if I give the impression I have a hidden bias here. It’s not like I suggested the guy should be stopped and searched.
Do we agree that there are cases when an investigation is duly called for and that there are cases when it is off limits? I’m honestly curious as to where the line is drawn, and you seemed to know your way around US law. I’d be happy if you can enlighten me.
If all that is required to initiate a search and subsequent seizure is ‘suspicion’ then you create an environment in which police are incentivized to invent reasons for suspicion unless there are real penalties for getting it wrong: but of course only those with privilege can follow up and ensure there are consequences for frivolous ‘suspicion’, so then the whole system becomes one for singling out and victimizing people without privilege.
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor I can definitely see that risk. It’s a slippery slope. And yet, US police is occasionally granted a mandate to “stop and frisk” anyone at will, already very far out on that slippery slope. Or, an example from over here, if the police suspect someone might be carrying a weapon, they could stop and search them. So whether we like it or not, aren’t we already at the environment you describe?
@denspier @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke tell us about how temporary this is please
@denspier @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor
Den, I know you're arguing in good faith. But you don't seem to understand what asset forfeiture is.
With asset forfeiture, your money is not evidence in a crime, while cops investigate. You lose the money, permanently.
In an investigation, cops either need to bring charges within a given time window, or return the valuable property. Their investigation window is finite.
With asset forfeiture, there is no investigation. It's over. Your money is gone.
@mekkaokereke @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor And that’s legal in the US?
It doesn’t sound like how asset forfeiture works over here, where it can only take place to counter criminal gains, i.e. there must first be a conviction, then forfeiture of the criminal’s property is undertaken to compensate victims and the state for damages.
Thanks for explaining. Turns out to be a tad complicated this. 
@denspier @dangillmor @mekkaokereke
Look up civil forfeiture, USA and what you read will horrify you. It is a *completely* different thing than forfeiting the proceeds of a crime after you have been duly convicted in a court of law.
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke But who approves that? Can the police do that all themselves without any court decision? And who gets to profit, the state? No right to appeal? 
@denspier @dangillmor @mekkaokereke
Perhaps you should start reading and save your questions til you’ve done that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
@DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke Well, it’s clearly very different in the US. Maybe I should have assumed that it could be and looked it up, and not made any assumptions. But even after having read about I’m in a bit of a chock. Clearly everything is possible.
Thanks for engaging with me. I have no further questions.
@denspier @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor
No problem!
And thank you for asking questions in good faith!
It's completely understandable that there is confusion about this, because the laws make no sense (other than to fund coos by legalizing theft from poor Black people).
In the US, asset forfeiture used to basically require a conviction (pre 1970s)
Then it at least required an indictment in a serious criminal enterprise (1970s)
Then Biden changed it to be "A cop says it's crime money" (1980s).
@mekkaokereke @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor But, but, but … how the %#~* can that even be allowed?
The closest comparison I can come up with over here is distraint, the seizure of goods, which can in rare circumstances take place “on the spot” if say a criminal with huge debts to victims is stopped for speeding. But then there is a court approval already in place.
Sorry to learn about this, Mekka.
@denspier @DavidM_yeg @dangillmor @mekkaokereke Rights-preserving policing cannot seize first and discover the crime later. The crime must first be suspected, and then the search and seizure must be pursuant to gathering evidence of that crime.
If you are stopped for the offense of speeding in a vehicle, then cash in the car cannot be evidence of making the car go faster. They could take any cans of red paint or racing stripe decal application paraphernalia they may find, but not cash.
@mekkaokereke @denspier @log @dangillmor
Indeed. But of course the truth irl is that police seize first and then invent their suspicion later. Post hoc reasoning / justification is a police specialty.
@denspier @mekkaokereke @dangillmor the basic rights being subverting are waived away because it's the money being taken, not a person being locked up. The money has no protection.