| ▲ | cmiles74 11 hours ago |
| The violation of rights isn't great, the article also mentions seizing cash which may be just as bad or worse in some cases. One person cited in the article was traveling to purchase a truck and the deal fell through ($30k), an elderly man and his daughter had $82k siezed (why they were traveling with that much cash wasn't mentioned). |
|
| ▲ | perihelions 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| - "(why they were traveling with that much cash wasn't mentioned)" You can read or watch their story here[0,1]. They're not shy about what happened to them—they sued the US government to get everything back (with the pro bono assistance of the nonprofit IJ). [0] https://ij.org/press-release/pittsburgh-retiree-sues-federal... ("Pittsburgh Retiree Sues Federal Government to Get His Life Savings Back" (2020)) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsre7I0UUJA (" DEA & TSA Take $82,000 Life Savings From Pittsburgh Retiree") - "Terry, 79, is a retired railroad engineer born and raised in Pittsburgh. For many years, he followed his parents’ habit of hiding money in the basement of their home. When Terry moved out of his family home and into a smaller apartment, he became uncomfortable with keeping a large amount of cash. Last summer, when his daughter Rebecca was home for a family event, Terry asked her to take the money and open a new joint bank account that he could use to pay for dental work and to fix his truck, among other needs..." |
| |
| ▲ | plagiarist 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | In a functioning justice system the government might be able to place a temporary hold on the money, but would need to promptly return it when declining to press charges or on an acquittal. Literal theft. | | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A functioning justice system in a free country has no legitimate reason to seize property without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing and an order from a court. | | |
| ▲ | sangnoir 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > any prior suspicion of wrongdoing That's still an incredibly low bar: the DEA agent may "smell marijuana on the person" or get a "hit" from a K9 | | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | This has always felt incredibly thin to me and shouldn’t in my opinion constitute probable cause. It’s essentially a dousing rod with four legs. | |
| ▲ | immibis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | why not say canine? | | |
| ▲ | shiroiushi an hour ago | parent [-] | | A "canine" is any kind of dog. A "K9" is a very specific type of dog used in US law enforcement, specially trained to act as if it smelled something when it sees a special signal from its handler. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Zak 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A temporary hold like that only seems just to me in a case where someone had been charged with a crime and the money is alleged too be evidence or proceeds of that crime. Civil forfeiture is a way for the government to enforce criminal laws with a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the accused. That's a bad thing. | |
| ▲ | bsimpson 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture (gov euphemism for said literal theft). I believe John Oliver did a piece on it when he first joined HBO. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | julianeon 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You should be free to travel with 10MM cash if you want. If the government wants to claim it, they should file a lawsuit against you. Just taking it is Divine Right of Kings nonsense. |
| |
| ▲ | fazeirony 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | this right here. i hate this move to a cashless society and hate getting stink-eyed because i buy something with a $20 bill. these seizures all but codify this. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The annoying thing is that a $50 bill is worth 20 1989-dollars but you can't spend them as freely without the risk of refusal or criminal suspicion. |
| |
| ▲ | dogman144 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | warts and all, this is what cryptocurrency provides for an digitized economy rapidly moving towards cashless digital-first payments. |
|
|
| ▲ | throwawaymanbot 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | wing-_-nuts 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| While I don't think it should be within the government's right to seize cash without reason, i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. It also gives you some negotiating power because you can say 'we agreed on x, I brought a check for x, the price is x or I'm walking'. |
| |
| ▲ | 1024core 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because a cashier's check is for a fixed amount; you can't change its value on the spot without going through the whole process again. Suppose you show up to buy a truck with #30K in cash (the truck is listed for $30K). You inspect the truck, and find that the A/C needs to be fixed, which would cost you, say $3K. So you decide to split the repair cost with the seller, and now the truck will cost you $28.5K. If you have cash, this is simple: you just hand over $28.5K. But if you have a cashier's check? | | |
| ▲ | wing-_-nuts 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You walk. In that case, I would walk regardless because I would ask if there were any issues with the vehicle and if a problem with the A/C wasn't disclosed, what else wasn't disclosed? When I show up to buy a vehicle, the only thing I'm doing is taking it to a mechanic for a look over, and completing the purchase if it's all clear. That's it. The time for disclosure and negotiation is over. Not negotiating things in person (as opposed to over email where I have it in writing) has saved me countless hours over the years and made buying things much more pleasant. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, the smart move is to walk, but we're not all perfectly rational spherical car buyers. You've made all that time investment, and having cash and being adaptable is just easier. |
|
| |
| ▲ | alasdair_ 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > i can't imagine why you'd carry cash for such transactions and not a cashier's check. because people forge cashier's checks far more easily than they forge cash. I certainly wouldn't take one as payment for a truck without going to the issuing bank first and withdrawing the money (as cash). In which case, there is no need for the check. | | |
| ▲ | wing-_-nuts 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | For smaller purchases, sure. For large purchases, I refuse to do business with anyone who insists I show up with thousands in cash. Even taking civil forfeiture out of the equation entirely, there's just too much that can go wrong. | | |
| ▲ | alasdair_ 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The last time I rented a home in the Bay area I paid first, last, damage deposit and pet deposit in cash (almost $15k). The reason was that I was changing banks after a dispute and didn't want my old bank snagging the money. The owner straight up asked me if I was a drug dealer though, so I see your point. I had to show him my tech company offer letter for him to believe me. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dogman144 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because you can't imagine, I can't carry whatever cash I'd like for a legal use case without the risk of seize-first, ask questions later? Nonsense implication if so. | |
| ▲ | marcus0x62 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. I don't care why you "can't imagine it". Don't blame the victim. | | |
|
