2y ago

Police Union Defends Forfeiture By Saying Anyone Carrying A Bunch Of Cash Is Probably A Criminal

www.techdirt.com Police Union Defends Forfeiture By Saying Anyone Carrying A Bunch Of Cash Is Probably A Criminal

I’m always heartened to see another local news team start digging into asset forfeiture. Especially the ones that don’t sugarcoat the findings with headlines that read like they were cr…

Archived version: https://archive.ph/JX1HX
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20240106131240/https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/05/police-union-defends-forfeiture-by-saying-anyone-carrying-a-bunch-of-cash-is-probably-a-criminal/

Law @lemmy.world

Police Union Defends Forfeiture By Saying Anyone Carrying A Bunch Of Cash Is Probably A Criminal

www.techdirt.com /2024/01/05/police-union-defends-forfeiture-by-saying-anyone-carrying-a-bunch-of-cash-is-probably-a-criminal/

1 0

19 comments

Police are criminals.
- Statistically, someone carrying a badge is more likely to be a criminal than someone carrying money.
  
  Do you have a source for that, because i'd love to be able to use it.

I don't know how or why asset forfiture was ever allowed, moral, or legal but it should have been outlawed a very long time ago.
Legalized thievery is worse than actual theft. It is corrupt and morally bankrupt.
- If, BIG IF, forfeiture is allowed, it should only be court ordered after a conviction, and recovered funds should not go to anyone related to the seizure, or ordering of forfeiture, as well as no metrics of such forfeiture contributing to any potential bonus, benefit, or payout for 'a job well done'.
  For sure, police should not be allowed to make that call.
  Stuff like this should never happen: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html
  An inanimate objects should not be able to be named as accessories to crime, the owner of the inanimate object should get due process, and in reality, it should be more of an order to investigate, and access given within reason (like a warrant would do), not forfeiture.
  
  I would prefer to throw that baby out with the bathwater.
  Given how corrupt this is now it seems wiser that this just not be a thing at all. I see your point, but I believe it will encourage backsliding to the insanity we have now.
  Maybe in 20 years.

After "seizing" a bunch of cash, the police are carrying a bunch of cash. Statement checks out.

Yet if you're not carrying any you're a criminal vagrant, so you're screwed either way

Oh cool so the cops are just openly doing banditry now.
- Just a lil bit.

Funny because anyone carrying a badge is absolutely a criminal.

I know everyone likes to hate on cryptocurrency, but I think there is something beautiful about cash you can carry entirely in a series of words you've memorized that no one can prove you even have.
- Unless you use something like Monero it's still useless since blockchain is neither anonymous, not private and since all exchanges requires KYC (Know Your Customer), your identity will be tied to that money.
  
  Unless you use something like Monero
  So just do that? I don't get this argument that lack of anonymity is a fatal flaw when various effective anonymizing solutions exist.
  But anyway that talking point isn't even relevant in this circumstance. It doesn't matter if it is possible in theory for someone with access to exchange records to uncover a link between you and your crypto holdings. Cops looking to mug you at a traffic stop or the airport are not going to find it practical to do that, and even if they did they have no way to take it from you simply because it isn't a physical object. It's an objective fact that cryptocurrency is massively more resistant to civil forfeiture than physical cash.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf

19 comments