Slashdot Mirror


Private Police Intelligence Network Shares Data and Targets Cash

Advocatus Diaboli writes Operating in collaboration with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal entities, Black Asphalt members exchanged tens of thousands of reports about American motorists, many of whom had not been charged with any crimes, according to a company official and hundreds of internal documents obtained by The Post. For years, it received no oversight by government, even though its reports contained law enforcement sensitive information about traffic stops and seizures, along with hunches and personal data about drivers, including Social Security numbers and identifying tattoos. Black Asphalt also has served as a social hub for a new brand of highway interdictors, a group that one Desert Snow official has called 'a brotherhood.' Among other things, the site hosts an annual competition to honor police who seize the most contraband and cash on the highways. As part of the contest, Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs. Some of the photos appear in a rousing hard-rock video that the Guthrie, Okla.-based Desert Snow uses to promote its training courses.

142 comments

  1. I wonder .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... how long it will be before some Black Asphalt login credentials will make their way to places like 4chan.

    1. Re:I wonder .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homegrown zetas, that's what we're getting here. Welcome to Mexico, soon to be Somalia..

  2. Time to exchange data on the American cops... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...who do this sort of "civil forfeiture." Badge numbers, names, pictures, locations, perhaps home addresses and phones.

    I'm sure they won't mind, just as they won't mind a "civil" lawsuit or two aimed in their direction. After all, fair's fair, eh?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember a site like this about 5 years ago. Seems the owner was arrested and the site taken down for "interfering with an ongoing investigation" and "Aiding and abiding the commission of a Class A Felony"

      Seems one of the undercover cops who's information was posted was shot and killed. They linked it back to the site and charged the owner.

      Though I agree with the idea and agree that making it public is a great idea, just know that they will do anything they can to keep there actions hidden from the public.

    2. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by static0verdrive · · Score: 2

      they will do anything they can to keep there actions hidden from the public.

      Wouldn't we all with that much cash on the line? No one wants their empires taking in any less than the previous day...

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    3. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one wants to get shot, not even an undercover cop.

    4. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by maliqua · · Score: 1

      but they're one of the few groups of people who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway.

      both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it

    5. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it

      ...said the criminal who has committed multiple counts of felonies and smaller crimes. If you want to keep that attitude you might want to look into reducing the absurdly large number of overly broad laws. And then design a gun that can identify and refuse to shoot at law-abiding citizens.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The secret service would say the same, even though it is specifically written in to their job description.

    7. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but they're one of the few groups of people who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway.

      Bullshit.

      Want to know who puts their life on the line every day at their job? Fishermen. Lumberjacks. Farm hands. Ironworkers. Garbagemen. Miners. Ranch hands. Truck drivers. Roofers. Roughnecks. Pilots. Bricklayers. Concrete workers. The blue collar workers that feed us and house us and move our goods are the people "who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway"...even today, some of these jobs are 20x more likely to kill you than being a cop.

      Police officer doesn't even make the list of the top fifty most lethal professions. It is on par with bartender and professional athlete in terms of risk.

    8. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...who do this sort of "civil forfeiture." Badge numbers, names, pictures, locations, perhaps home addresses and phones.

      I'm sure they won't mind, just as they won't mind a "civil" lawsuit or two aimed in their direction. After all, fair's fair, eh?

      If they are not doing anything wrong, what do they have to worry about?

    9. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another idiot poster with nothing to back it up, Police/Fire are generally around the same on most lists, from the top 20 to the top 10. It just depends were the data is retrieved from

    10. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP is exaggerating with the top fifty (that would require a very subcategorized list), but he's more right that you are. Police/Fire are safer than most other physically demanding jobs.

    11. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fisherman falls off a boat and dies thats his own damn fault. Who cares if they die more. Cops get shot just for being cops. There the real heros

    12. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      voluntary firemen are real heros

    13. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gonna play, you gotta pay.

    14. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroes my shiny metal ass. They are pigs, and you are a sheep.

    15. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by wwphx · · Score: 1

      Law-abiding citizens? There ain't no such thing. Everybody occasionally breaks the speed limit, on purpose or inadvertently. I knew a preacher in Tucson who jokingly confessed in front of a congregation that he'd occasionally let the speedometer creep up to 60 when he was driving to Phoenix (back during the Arab Oil Embargo and the 55 MPH speed limit days). So I guess guns mostly do that right now.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    16. Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... by rhazz · · Score: 1
      This gun already exists! Well... in an anime at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      Inspectors and Enforcers use large handguns called "Dominators"—special weapons designed to fire only at those with a higher-than-acceptable Crime Coefficient.

  3. Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think it is about time to curtail our police state and defund the and repeal the laws that make this possible.

    1. Re:Defund by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Think it is about time to curtail our police state and defund the and repeal the laws that make this possible.

      The question is ... is it legal?

      Or is this just one of many ways in which law enforcement no longer considers themselves subject to the law?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Defund by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I'm so weary of this country. Where in the world can I go that respects individual liberties?

    3. Re:Defund by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0

      That ship has sailed. The transnational, transgenerational wealthy have decided that their little experiment in democracy hasn't worked out for them. You can expect continuing regression to the mean of governments for the foreseeable future. Explicit slavery in your lifetime is a pretty good bet.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:Defund by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Much of their funding comes from the assets they steal. They are becoming economically self sufficient and more dangerous. Soon there will be only one way to deal with them, and you're not going to like it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Defund by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is ... is it legal?

      If you can't find a prosecutor willing to investigate and press charges, it's a meaningless question.

    6. Re:Defund by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      Right, and presumably if they did find such a prosecutor, all of the people who profit from this scheme would just find reason to harass said prosecutor?

      Congratulations, America, you've jumped the shark.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Defund by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 1

      It is *technically* legal, but it is an abuse of the law. Asset forfeitures were originally intended to prevent drug kingpins from using their ill-gotten gains to hire high-priced lawyers, and to thwart money-laundering, but it's become a form of legalized highway robbery against people who do all manner of legitimate business in cash for whatever reason.

    8. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All governments are by nature hostile to individual liberties, and will always take them away. The only thing that stops this is pushback from the people. So, you get exactly those individual liberties that are important enough to motivate enough people to stand up and make real sacrifices to protect them.

      And that includes you, incidentally. If you want to just enjoy the civil liberties that others protect for you...well...you get what you get.

      "Show me what a man will suffer in silence, and I will show you the exact measure of injustice, cruelty, and wrong to which he will be subjected" -- Oscar Wilde (well not really, I can't remember who said this, but when in doubt always attribute to Oscar Wilde).

    9. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, since Drug kingpins were created by drug laws which were started mostly as a jobs program, and even some of the most common drug laws enforced, the ones aginst pot (most users, most arrests) they even made the laws against the advice of the AMA, preferring the testimony of "Narcotics Officers" who had jack shit to do since Alcohol was taken away from them, over medical doctors.

      The entire drug war stinks of corruption and abuse from before the days the laws were passed.

    10. Re:Defund by jythie · · Score: 2

      In this case the laws turn a profit, so defunding them would not do much.

    11. Re:Defund by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm so weary of this country. Where in the world can I go that respects individual liberties?

      Instead of running away, you need to stand and fight. As bad as America is, there is no place where individual rights are more respected. Get involved. Work to end drug prohibition, which is the root of so many problems. Speak out about stupid laws. Most importantly, stay informed, and vote.

    12. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that stops this is pushback from the people.

      ....and we're trying to reduce the ability for people to organize and collectively shout loudly enough to be taken seriously. Er, I mean, prevent terrorism or something.

    13. Re:Defund by qbast · · Score: 1

      You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in GB nobody fears getting robbed by police. Or getting killed for not dropping to the ground within 100ms.

    14. Re:Defund by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I automatically vote No on bond overrides for prison facilities. The more cells we give the legal system, the more crimes it will invent, out of thin air if necessary, to fill them. Limit the number of cells, and they will have to prioritize: no more locking people up fdor life for possessing seven pounds of wacky weed.

    15. Re:Defund by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      No it isn't, because civil forfeiture operates when no charges are filed. If you are arrested, Constitutional rights kick in. Property can be frozen until trial, but any disposition of that property must be by legal judgment. Civil forfeiture allows officials to steal property without due process, so long as no charges are filed.

    16. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like it, then build your own internet you faggot.

    17. Re:Defund by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Or getting killed for not dropping to the ground within 100ms.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    18. Re:Defund by Minwee · · Score: 1

      You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in GB nobody fears getting robbed by police. Or getting killed for not dropping to the ground within 100ms.

      How's that working out?

    19. Re:Defund by Tuidjy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those are very relevant examples of the British police incompetence resulting in dead citizens. The thing is... there are four of them, and they occurred in a period of twice as many years. Even if you add up all of the fatal British police shootings since 2000, including ones that were 100% justified, in self-defense, and recorded by the ubiquitous cameras, you will still come to about one tenth of the lowest estimate of police shootings in the US for one year.

      The Brits can go years without any fatal police shootings, and the total times service weapons are discharged is usually in the dozens per year. For comparison, last year, there were four fatal police shootings in the US county (no 'r') in which I work. Two in the one where I live, plus a possible bloodbath, in the town were I live, which was avoided because some brave policemen decided to disregard procedure, by rushing and disarming a suspect instead of opening fire on him and his friends.

      If anything, I have been amazed at the videos in which British cops subdue maniacs who are waving various weapons around. Make a Google search. You will find videos of literally dozens of cops spending a good portions of an hour in ultimately successful attempts not to kill people who in the US would be getting a bellyful of lead within seconds.

      I'm not even going to argue whether it's a good thing that these policemen and policewomen are risking their lives to capture those people. I'm not going to say that I would want the cops in my town to act like British cops. But it is a fact that British style policing results in a lot fewer lethal shootings that ours, per capita.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    20. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so weary of this country. Where in the world can I go that respects individual liberties?

      Iceland.

    21. Re:Defund by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not even really that legal. Initially, there was no legislative action involved at all, instead, they dug up a principle of English common law that hadn''t been used in centuries where they 'sue' the property itself. It had been long forgotten primarily because anyone old enough to go to school could see that the very concept is at best silly.

      But since they started with actual drug dealers, nobody saw fit to demand due process of law. Not, it's pretty much anybody they can get their hands on.

    22. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you're comparing a relatively small, relatively isolated island country with the population of about 57 million, with a country that occupies the better part of a continent, and a population of 322 million? Even if everything was the same economically, culturally between the two, you'd expect about six times more police shootings overall. I recognize that doesn't make up for the balance, but there are other factors involved.

      I'm not defending the more egregious examples of US police brutality and overly-itchy trigger fingers...but for better or worse, our police also have to deal with the daily threat of firearms employed by criminals--a threat the UK's cops very seldom ever have to face. Even today, outside of Ireland, it's uncommon for a police force to issue firearms for general duty, instead relying on better trained Authorised Firearms Officers to handle the weapons-wielding maniac situations you described, while everyone else handles the more mundane things. As you can imagine, it's relatively hard to be shot by the cops when most cops do not in fact carry guns. Naturally, a better trained police force would provide a more judicious, if not more restrained use of firearms.

      US police forces on the other hand, have routinely admitted to selecting against employing officers with higher IQs, and further, there are laws which require departments to hire officers of a more "diverse ethnic background", even if those candidates are not the best qualified. Given those factors alone, you're surprised we have more officer involved shootings?

    23. Re:Defund by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my friend who had her long time friend stabbed to death. I'm sure he often sits around in the afterlife contemplating how much better his death by stabbing was to a death by gunshot.

    24. Re:Defund by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      I must be missing something.

      1. The original poster praises the British police, and compares it favorably to ours.

      2. The next poster lists four examples of the British police killing people, arguably due to the incompetence of the policemen.

      3. I point out that his examples are relevant, but spread over the span of eight years, that the British police has shot exactly zero people to death in 2012 and 2013, and that their police killings are a lot less frequent than ours, per capita.

      4. You bring up a friend of a friend who was stabbed to death, and speculate about his afterlife!?

      I admit I am having trouble following your chain of thought, but I will attempt to answer you. Lets see...

      You are wrong because the crocodile is longer than it's green, being long in both directions but only green on top.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    25. Re:Defund by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      Even if everything was the same economically, culturally between the two, you'd expect about six times more police shootings overall.

      Yes, you'd expect six times fewer total shootings, if you expect the same shootings per capita. Instead, they have more that 500 times fewer shootings (over the last 18 years) or about 100 times fewer per capita.

      I recognize that doesn't make up for the balance, but there are other factors involved.

      Yes, there are, and yes, many of the ones you listed are very relevant. But my point was that the examples I was replying to weren't damning at all. The British do a good job at policing, and if they have an easier job of it, isn't it at least possible that it is due to them doing something else also right?

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    26. Re:Defund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British do a good job at policing, and if they have an easier job of it, isn't it at least possible that it is due to them doing something else also right?

      I'll agree with that. I'd say the British do a better job of having a less violent culture--one which doesn't require as much policing to begin with. Nobody compares with the Japanese, though.

  4. Holy cow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Desert Snow contract employees took in more than $1 million over six months from drivers on the state's highways, including Interstate 40 west of Oklahoma City. Under its contract, the firm was allowed to keep 25 percent of the cash.

    When Caddo County District Court Judge David A. Stephens learned that Desert Snow employees were not sworn law enforcement officers in Oklahoma, he denounced the arrangement as "shocking," and he threatened to put David in jail if it continued.

    The state's American Civil Liberties Union chapter called for an investigation of the district attorney and criminal charges against Desert Snow employees for impersonating law enforcement officers.

    Wait, so these guys are doing traffic stops and seizures (where they benefit from it) and they're not actually law enforcement?

    So basically they're a shakedown racket? The more they seize the more profit they make? That's RICO level stuff there.

    This kind of stuff is appalling, and it just means that a lot of stuff is being put into the private sector so they can ignore all of those pesky laws.

    Unbelievable.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Holy cow ... by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is correct. This is a legalized armed-robbery ring preying on US travelers. That, folks, is how low this country has fallen.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Holy cow ... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

      Yes, and you can thank Nancy Reagan and the war on drugs for this shit ( http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr...)

      Zero tolerance, indeed.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct. This is a legalized armed-robbery ring preying on US travelers. That, folks, is how low this country has fallen.

      Man we need solitary heroes again.

      Knight rider
      Street Hawk
      AirWolf
      Snake Plissken

    4. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct. This is a legalized armed-robbery ring preying on US travelers. That, folks, is how low this country has fallen.

      Man we need solitary heroes again.

      Knight rider
      Street Hawk
      AirWolf
      Snake Plissken

      Snake Plissken?!? I thought he was dead.

    5. Re:Holy cow ... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you and everybody else!

    6. Re:Holy cow ... by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      We're all too occupied playing the lone hero in video games...

    7. Re:Holy cow ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, no. Things started getting a lot nastier with Nixon's Controlled Substances Act. They decided it was best to have the Mob control the substances.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Holy cow ... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right, I've run into this before. Always refuse a search. When you do that, if they are a police officer or not will become apparently rather quickly. Non-police will stall and try to get you to hang around so they can bully you into it. Ask if you're under arrest or otherwise being detained against your will, if not, leave. Have no further discussion with that person. Keep in mind that even the police departments get to keep seized cash. It may not go directly into their pocket but it goes to buying them new squad cars, weapons, vests and even towards their bonuses and promotions. So they have a very strong incentive to "Find" something on you. In a large metropolitian department it may not seem so direct to the officers. But you get into your average town that only has half a doze cops and finding a couple of hundred K in a trunk becomes a big win for them.

    9. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need SOLID SNAKE.

    10. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait... of course in fine slashdot tradition I did not RTFA, but you're saying non-law-enforcement people are pulling people over and confiscating their assets?

      Doesn't that make it OK to, you know, shoot them in self defense? If someone stops you and demands your money, that's known as robbery, and it establishes a reasonable cause to suspet a threat to your safety.

    11. Re:Holy cow ... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Yup - pure banditry.

      Since we're on the freeway to neofeudalism anyways, maybe we ought to look into how bandits were dealt with back in the bad old days....

    12. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern version of highwayman with the approval of governance, much like many of the pirates that once sailed the seas.

    13. Re:Holy cow ... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Screw the fictional superheroes. We need Snowdonman!

    14. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a cardboard box. You take care of your cardboard box, and your cardboard box will take care of you.

    15. Re: Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And under bush sr and bill Clinton 1208 and 1033 were created that started sending massive amounts of military equip to Departments.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program

      They all suck regardless of party.

    16. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're a state-sanctioned highway robbery gang.

    17. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they do the "you are not going anywhere until I let a dog sniff your car" routine. That is what happened to me a few years ago at a traffic stop. I was pulled over heading back home from a funeral, (home was three states away), and the officer noticed I was "not acting right" and I was "nervous." I told him I have an anxiety disorder, and I had just come from a funeral so I was not in the best emotional state. He did not care and told me either I could consent to a search of my car or he would walk his dog around and search after the dog gave probable cause. I made the decison not to fight the enevitable and let him search. He found nothing and had to let me off with a warning about "following too close" after tying me up for 45 minutes on the side of the road.

      Trust me when I say cops can find a reason to search, or detain you till a dog gets there to find/make a reason.

      captcha: insanity

    18. Re:Holy cow ... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Seriously, never consent to a search again. 45min is nothing... 10yrs because your cousin dropped a bottle of Oxy under your seat last time he borrowed your car to go get beer sucks.

    19. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the traffic stop has been concluded, you are free to leave. You do not have to wait around for them to bring in a drug sniffing dog or to secure a warrant. The police bullied you, they are under no obligation to inform you they can no longer detain you. Never consent to a search no matter how much the police badger or tell you failure to do so will make it worse, including charging you with obstruction. Police use psychological manipulation to get what they want, to extract information and consent; these techniques are part of their training.

      Finally, get a dash camera that also records the inside the car.

    20. Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the case in TX, but maybe not in Okla.

    21. Re:Holy cow ... by Arker · · Score: 0

      Most commonly they were simply routed around.

      OK, maybe I made that sound more simple than it was. When every route is covered by 'bandits' of one stripe or another, 'just route around' is easier said than done... but, what happened is that the bandits started competing.

      There were two routes that could be taken to market, each harbored a different gang. One year, gang A simply took everything that tried to pass. Big gains for them that year. The same year, gang B was a little more restrained, and only 'taxed' caravans but let them go on through after coughing up a fee. Their gains were smaller that year, but the next year, caravans came through their territory and contributd to their coffers again. Gang A's territory received no merchants. Gang A got no gain from this, and would see no gains from it again for a decade or more, until they were finally driven out by a new gang which behaved differently. Gang B, on the other hand, gained more than the first year, as they now had all the traffic rather than half of it passing through their territory.

      And thus was born taxation. Eco-friendly theft, sustainable banditry. The first guy to try it was no doubt considered an imbecile by his peers, at first, but it soon proved to be an advantage that only increases over time and the taxers not only held on but soon enough put the old-school bandits at a permanent disadvantage that continues to this day.

      And so over time the taxer chiefs became Barons, and the Baronies were organized into Kingdoms, and the Kingdoms into Empires, and the the Empires fell apart into Baronies and Kingdoms again, a cycle that in some older areas has probably repeated a dozen times, and then after much time all of these groups were swept away by the new secular religion of nationalism, and Nations were invented to replace them. But the scam remains essentially the same regardless of the time and place.

      How would that translate today? Well if we could get a clear corridor through the country of jurisdictions that repudiated this and other forms of robbery clearly, a lot of travellers would be willing to detour significantly in order to remain within that corridor. The jurisdictions that continued the robbery would, like gang A, effectively be cut out of the game, and even though travellers would make it through with most of their belongings each one would certainly drop a few dollars in taxes on these jurisdictions as they passed through. But getting the ball rolling, getting the initial free corridor on line, I got nothing practical on that at the moment, I am sorry.

      It probably was not easy to do that the first time around either though. We may have existed as a species for a couple of hundred thousand years before we actually progressed to the point where travelling more than a few miles did not involve a likelihood of mortal combat to begin with.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    22. Re:Holy cow ... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 2

      No. Nearly every state has made it a crime to defend yourself against a police officer, even if that officer is threatening your life while violating your constitutionally guaranteed rights.

      At nearly every turn, you are just plain fucked.

    23. Re:Holy cow ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      How about they do the "you are not going anywhere until I let a dog sniff your car" routine.

      You ask if you're free to go. If the answer is "yes", you leave. If the answer is "no", ask if you are under arrest. If the answer is "yes", exercise your right to be silent, do not resist any searches but do not (verbally) consent to them. Do not talk to the cops without your lawyer present in this case. If the answer is "no", start over by asking if you're free to go. When asking these questions, repeat the current question until you get a clear "yes" or "no" answer.

      Trust me when I say cops can find a reason to search,

      The important thing isn't whether the cop thinks he has a reason to do a search, but that you do not consent to it. If you consent to a search, then anything the cop finds can (and will) be legally used against you in a trial with little or no chance of your lawyer making any of it inadmissible. If you did not consent to the search, and your lawyer can convince the court that the search was not legal, he can have the evidence thrown out.

      Also, if you consent to a search and the cop just happens to break your stuff, you have no legal recourse since you consented to the search.

      tl;dr: Do not (verbally) consent to searches. Do not (verbally or physically) resist searches.

    24. Re:Holy cow ... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      But these aren't police officers. They're only pretending to be police officers. They're doing so with the approval of the county, but they're not deputized or anything (per TFA).

      The state's American Civil Liberties Union chapter called for an investigation of the district attorney and criminal charges against Desert Snow employees for impersonating law enforcement officers.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    25. Re:Holy cow ... by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Well what do you think is the likelyhood that anyone who defends themselves against one of these thugs is going to avoid being convicted of murder?

    26. Re:Holy cow ... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      That's up to the jury, but they can't make the case with laws that prevent "defend[ing] yourself against a police officer".

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  5. In my day we called that DWB by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    Otherwise known as being non-white in the South.

    In polite circles it was known as a poll tax or a user fee for not being white.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:In my day we called that DWB by NemoinSpace · · Score: 0

      Normally, the racial bias that portrays itself everyday is not lost on me, but you are so far off the mark on this one (as most are), that it becomes readily apparent why the racketeering game is so successful in this country. Hell, we even use it quite unabashedly to fund the desires of our old men, who constantly wish to wage war with a cannon fodder lower class that Mao himself could not have genetically engineered. Some of the pathetic bastards have even stooped to invading small island countries like Granada. - How fuckin gutless is that?
      Moving drugs, shakedowns, and insuring successful transport of drugs in this country is a rich white mans game. The fact that low income minorities are paraded before you as law and order is amusing, until the rest of us realize the ruse has worked.
      The only irony is that while it absolutely required rich, fiercely independent, white men to establish modern democracies, the only people that have demonstrated a similar resolve to fight for their freedoms is the post WWII generation blacks (men and women). The rest of us have stood in line to demand government supplied healthtcare and MTV. The serfs of the 13th century would be appalled. As am I.
      The drug trade is simply a means to an end. That of waging war, they prefer to wage war on other countries, but waging war on your own civilian population is so much easier. Especially once they have become accustomed to being fed copious amounts of bullshit. If you are one to offer a dimes worth of difference between Obama or Bush, for that matter, this message applies to you. Your government has lost its way, because the Americans have lost their way. I would offer a solution, rather than a rant, if I felt you were smart enough to hear the message. But you are not. So enjoy the vestiges of your rotting democracy before you can't stand the smell anymore, because it's already dead and you killed it.

  6. Privatized=Compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else would we expect when we privatize police activities that should clearly be done by accountable public entites?
    A corporation can _always_ be counted on to monetize anything they can get their hands on by whatever means possible.

    1. Re:Privatized=Compromised by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Privatization is a means by which corrupt bureaucrats hide the largess of government from an unsuspecting populace. Then they run on a record of "shrinking" the government.

    2. Re:Privatized=Compromised by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      What else would we expect when we privatize police activities that should clearly be done by accountable public entites?

      What else would we expect when we privatize the entire government and effectively do away with accountable public entites? That's only a slight exaggeration of the current situation - soon it won't be an exaggeration at all.

      It's also not entirely an issue of privatization. Even when the DEA didn't have the private-sector taint outlined in the article, they were over-zealous over-enforcers with their own political power and their own obvious vested interest in keeping drugs illegal and penalties harsh.

      That said, you are right, and ruthlessly weeding out private-sector parasites like Desert Snow would be a very good place to start - presuming there's enough accountable government power left to do so.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:Privatized=Compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Privatization is a means by which corrupt bureaucrats hide the largess of government from an unsuspecting populace. Then they run on a record of "shrinking" the government.

      It is more than that. It is wealth transfer from government employees to corporate owners. They sell it is a cost reduction that comes from using private employees who get paid less and don't get very good benefits because of competition between bidders. But after a year or two the institutional knowledge makes it extremely difficult to change to a new service provider so th company gets a lock on the contract, raises prices to match or even exceed the original costs but the employees remain underpaid and the difference goes into the pockets of the corporate owners.

      You end up with the worst of both worlds - bureaucratic inefficiency and poverty-level wages. At least with direct government employees they were paid well enough to spend money in the local economy. This just sucks the local tax dollars out and puts it into the international stock market.

  7. Prey by pitchpipe · · Score: 2

    Anymore, when I am out-and-about, I feel like one member of a big school of fish because when I see a police officer I know that it is mostly random whether I get pulled over or not. This makes him like a big fish that eats us little ones. I try to blend in (stick to the middle of the school) because it is safer. Luckily I am a white guy (that makes it easier to blend in). I really feel for people with darker skin.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  8. we've always been at war on %abstract_concept% by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Informative

    United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

    "If you can't prove the crime, don't confiscate a dime."
    -- some blatant pinko commie, probably Thomas Jefferson

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. Pronounced how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    black ass fault, eh?

    1. Re:Pronounced how? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Funny or Interesting? O_O

      Very unfortunate name...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  10. Undercover cop issue a non argument. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The issue is random confiscation (aka. "theft") by local police. I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty. What isn't tolerable in any way, shape, or form is confiscation of my property because some dimwitted, local yokel cop *thought* about drugs while looking at my car.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What isn't tolerable in any way, shape, or form is confiscation of my property because some dimwitted, local yokel cop *thought* about drugs while looking at my car.

      I'm no longer willing to accept "dimwitted local yokel".

      I go straight to assuming they know damned well they can do it, that they benefit from it, and since they don't really require any proof, why not do it and make themselves look good? I don't believe it's credible they do this in good faith.

      And, of course, I'm sure they skim a little off the top for themselves.

      The rest of the police complain that it's a few bad apples who do this, and that it makes the rest of them look bad. If the honest cops want to stop this perception, start arresting the crooked ones.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by weilawei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In January last year, David hired himself and his top trainers out as a roving private interdiction unit for the district attorney’s office in rural Caddo County, Okla. Working with local police, Desert Snow contract employees took in more than $1 million over six months from drivers on the state’s highways, including Interstate 40 west of Oklahoma City. Under its contract, the firm was allowed to keep 25 percent of the cash.

    3. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even worse it's using things like RICO; which are intended for ongoing criminal enterprises (like a cartel or organized crime) as a tool to steal money from individuals.

      Civil forfeiture consists of your property being the defendant, and you have no standing in the case.

      Nothing better than seizing an asset, denying the owner standing in the case, and then keeping whatever was seized regardless of criminal charges filed against the owner.

      Carrying cash is now essentially illegal. Ideally the police would need to prove illegal actions to keep it, or worse, you'd have to prove it was legit. But no; now they just assume it's dirty, and keep it -- with or without a charge (let alone a conviction).

    4. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.

      You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.

    5. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by jmcvetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the honest cops want to stop this perception

      There are no honest cops. Any decent, non-abusive, non-corrupt person who joins up is drummed out of the force within a year.

    6. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      THIS is why people of my political persuasion are teaching our nine-year-olds how to handle machine guns. We would all rather that little girls be learning to code Swift at that age, but when cops have a license to steal, meaning just grab cash and property without due process and not even to contribute to a general revenue fund but to use it to buy paramilitary toys for themselves, this is what happens:
      http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/...

    7. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is business as usual for customs officers, has been as long as I can remember. Try to fly out of Amsterdam to just about any other country with an unusual hair cut, color of your pants or whatever officer Banjo of the day think looks suspect. Or fly into the US with dark skin and beard. And it's not going to fucking stop until we boycott the whole thing. I'd rather spend the rest of my life not traveling than subjecting myself to that kind of discrimination and harassment.

    8. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.

      You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.

      GP seems to be under the misconception that some sort of evidence is needed. This is how it goes:
      1. Cop sees car rolling down the road
      2. [sniff, sniff from 1/2 a mile away] Cop "smells" drugs in car
      3. Cop impounds car and any valuables he likes as "Civil Forfeiture"
      4. Profit!

      Note that the owner of impounded property is *never* charged with a crime (unless they object to being robbed by the police, then it's assault on the police or the ever-popular "resisting arrest"), and their only recourse is to hire a lawyer and start a civil suit to regain their property.

      Oh, you thought there was anything even vaguely like a criminal inquiry involved? That's adorable!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    9. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Civil forfeiture consists of your property being the defendant, and you have no standing in the case.

      It's things like this which convince me that the majority of the Supreme Court justices don't give a flying f*ck about the text of the constitution. Instead, they make up ridiculous justifications for any pro-police/pro-government/anti-civil rights judgment.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some ways to protect yourself from this:

      1) Buy cheap low-end cars. Cops don't seize those because they aren't worth much.
      2) Don't haul cash around. Instead, keep your money in mutual funds and transfer it electronically.
      3) If you must move cash physically rather than electronically, use cashier's checks with the recipient's name already on them.

      You shouldn't *have* to do any of this. But if you are hauling cash around in an expensive car....you should expect to attract the attention of every local criminal element, including and especially the police.

    11. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      THIS is why people of my political persuasion are teaching our nine-year-olds how to handle machine guns.

      Good job, there.

    12. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never get an Amsterdam stamp on your passport. Go in and out through the Hague.

      If you have an Amsterdam stamp on your passport, 'lose it' and get a new one.

      Your sphincter will thank you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that also why people like you pick usernames that you think are clever but actually reveal latent racism?
      It isn't even clever, there are a lot better puns you can make with that phrase, but it would require actually knowing something about the cultures of muslims rather than the culture of foxnews.

    14. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, not where I live. There are plenty of good cops. It's a small town, everyone knows each other, and if there were any bad cops, they'd probably just end up missing.

    15. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      has the civil forfeiture issue even made it to the supreme court? I'd be amazed if the lower courts would allow that to happen. (lots of police departments might miss out on easy cash, if a precedent was set.)

    16. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Some ways to protect yourself from this:

      Here are some other, more long term, ways to protect yourself:
      1. Vote for candidates that support individual rights.
      2. Do not vote for any candidate that says we need more cops and tougher sentencing.
      3. If in doubt, do NOT vote for anyone that is endorsed by the police union or prison guard union.
      4. If your state has a referendum process (most western states do, most eastern states don't) then vote for an end to drug prohibition when it appears on your ballot.

    17. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares about your SJW ramblings, there, libshit.

    18. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They don't even have to prove anyone guilty. With civil forfeiture they sue the property in this case cash, you don't have standing even if it's your cash and you were never convicted of a crime.

    19. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like something DoJ would love to smack down.

    20. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      You didn't ready the article.

    21. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If people can just "end up missing" in your town, then it's not because you have good cops.

    22. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the honest cops want to stop this perception

      There are no honest cops. Any decent, non-abusive, non-corrupt person who joins up is drummed out of the force within a year.

      It is not always that fast. Usually, non-corrupt police officers will quit within their first 5 years.

    23. Re: Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had over $200,000 in property seized and when the charges were thrown out I was asked by my Lawyer when I wanted it back "What do you want, your property or your freedom? "...You know what I chose since I'm here now.

    24. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Here's a tidbit about that 'culture' that does not come from Fox News:
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...

    25. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash sale auctions at storage lockers.... actually involve cash, right? If you intend to purchase something, in cash, at one of those auctions for thousands of dollars, what then?

      Does intentionally posting information about undercover cops count as free speech?

    26. Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Sadly this is very true. I have known several cops who have been driven out of the force by the corruption and that is just in my little town of less than 3000 people.

  11. Letters of marque and reprisal? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    It's a fine international tradition, but one that I thought had fallen out of favor some centuries ago.

    1. Re:Letters of marque and reprisal? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It' worse. A letter of marque authorized seizure of ENEMY ships. That means that this civil forfeiture is essentially a declaration of war against U.S. citizens.

  12. Fuck the government by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Fuck the government

  13. "The New Yorker" article on civil forfeiture by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

    http://www.newyorker.com/magaz... "Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing?"

  14. Prosecute the legislators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should necessarily prosecute the legislators for lack of due diligence for ever even trying to enact laws that have the slightest appearance of constitutional violation in letter or intent.

  15. Aggravated Robbery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Means, motive, opportunity.

  16. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only person to hear a hint of racism in the name of this program: Black ASSphalt? Can the cops be that upfront about their prejudices?

  17. Property-seizures MUST STOP by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

    Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

    I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

    The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

    That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Cops doing their job.
      Fine.

      Cops using an intelligence network to make job easier.
      Also fine.

      Cops using a privately run intelligence network with no oversight or rules but lots of personally identifiable information to track people whom the state isn't even legally interested in?
      Not cool, but correctable. Oversight is important, as is proper rules and regs for things stored in a database and its usage, even for people the state is interested in. Adding people the state isnt legally interested in...is upsetting but not terribly surprising. This is a correctable situation.

      Cops using a privately run intelligence network with no oversight or rules but lots of personally identifiable information to track people whom the state isn't even legally interested in, in order to sieze their assets and then keep a piece of those assets?
      Seriously messed up. Some people need fired. And we've long known civil forfeiture is ripe for abuse and needs to go away. More politically difficult, but still correctable. We must hold our public servants accountable.

      Private business performing the duties of cops using a privately run intelligence network with no oversight or rules but lots of personally identifiable information to track people whom the state isn't even legally interested in, in order to sieze their assets and then keep a piece of those assets and form a major portion of the business's profit stream?
      JFC WTF ?!?!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by mi · · Score: 1

      Private business performing the duties of cops using a privately run intelligence network with no oversight or rules but lots of personally identifiable information to track people whom the state isn't even legally interested in, in order to sieze their assets and then keep a piece of those assets and form a major portion of the business's profit stream?

      Seriously? You find the fact, that it is a private business to be the most offensive? A private business can neither arrest nor prosecute — much less convict anybody. They can not even seize any assets themselves. Their personally identifiable information (PII) about us is unlikely to be any less regulated, than what Google or Slasdhdot collect. If anything, they are more cautious than NSA is likely to be.

      That said, it is quite hilarious, how the big government types — who usually support its ever increasing role in our lives (because "corporations" are evil) — still get turned off by the police — as if the Department of Education and the FBI are not from the same government...

      No, the only scandalously wrong thing described in the article is the ease, with law enforcement's can seize our assets... And the most offensive part is that the authors aren't even offended by this particular aspect.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

      Expect a knock at your door in 3 ... 2 ...

    4. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Raystonn · · Score: 1

      Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs

      Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.

      I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property . Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.

      The Executive can seize cash, vehicles, and even real estate without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.

      That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.

      It's time to start carrying a form of money that cannot be seized by authorities. (That is, as long as you can keep your private key a secret.) Oh dear... what are the authoritarians going to do when Bitcoin adoption goes maintream?

    5. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by dywolf · · Score: 2

      I do believe I said civil forfeiture needs to go away. So yes, further insult on top of that is of course even more infuriating.

      What do you mean make no seizures and arrests? It's not only in the source article, but in the local news as well (I happen to live there). They aren't just training cops. They are literally acting as cops on their own. They run their own patrols. They make their own stops and detentions on the highway. You're goddamned right thats the most shocking bit. They're now facing charges and lawsuits related to "impersonating police", and the ADA who was involved is likewise facing some severe penalties. And its starting ot look like some of the other surrounding counties got involved too.

      Much like the For Profit Prison model, their interests are completely polar opposite to that of the Police. The interests of Police at least (ideally) are aligned with the Public's: ie, the enforcement of law. This naturally leads to a desire to decrease criminality. But a corporation's interests lie in making money. And how does a For Profit Police/Prison company make more money? By finding more criminals, and increasing criminality.

      Whatever. There's no sense in even talking to you "ALL GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" types. Government isnt always the solution but its not always the enemy either. Against corporations, how else do you deal with a bad actor? Individually? No that doesnt work, you're too small individually. Some sort of collective action right? A bunch of individuals acting in concert? Congratulations: that's what Government is.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by mi · · Score: 1

      They're now facing charges and lawsuits related to "impersonating police", and the ADA who was involved is likewise facing some severe penalties.

      Exactly. Now, where is the movement to stop the property seizures? Is anyone even collecting signatures?

      Much like the For Profit Prison model

      Let's not get distracted, huh?

      And how does a For Profit Police/Prison company make more money? By finding more criminals, and increasing criminality.

      You are perfectly right that it is in the interests of such companies to find more criminals. However, the "increasing criminality" allegation needs citations... Got any? The article sure does not... It enumerates some questionable practices, but nowhere is there are an allegation of an innocent person getting locked-up "for profit".

      Against corporations, how else do you deal with a bad actor?

      By switching to a competitor, that's how... You don't like Coke, you switch to Pepsi, that's all.

      A bunch of individuals acting in concert? Congratulations: that's what Government is.

      It can also be a charity, a for-profit corporation, a collective farm, a non-profit corporation, etc. And, yes, any of those are "bunch of individuals acting in concert" — and, yes, they can do almost all, that the government is doing... And whereas government is necessarily a monopoly, all of those things compete with each other for our monies and attentions. Switching from Consumer Digest to Consumer Reports is just as easily as switching from Coke to Pepsi.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by dywolf · · Score: 2

      (my kingdom for an edit button)

      Thats why you people need to stop thinking of government as some mysterious other disconnected from you, and get involved in it. By the people, of the people, for the people, all the jazz. its an ideal thats hard to attain and maintain, and i hold no illusions that our government is meeting said ideal, but that doesnt mean the solution is to scrap it. Vote. Get involved. Help stop corporations* and rich folks from owning too much much of it, from enjoying disproportionate representation. One person, one vote. None of this "well i have more money, so my voice gets to be louder" crap. Our country is and has been more of an oligarchy than a democracy for some time. The solution to that problem isnt to throw out your best tool against it.

      *BTW, corporations aren't evil.
      They're worse.
      They're amoral. Evil is predictable. Amorality is not, especially since hte source of their amorality is the pursuit of money, and people can get very creative when it comes to making money. You have a lot of faith in corporations. I dont. Companies have flouted and ignored food safety laws because they calculated they could afford to get away with so much and increase their profits by X amount....food safety laws created specifically because companies were poisoning people because they calculated just how much they could get away with.

      Same withClean Air, CLean water acts, and the EPA that you folks love to deride. There's a reason we have them: Cause companies didn't give a shit. The way China looks now, with all that smog and pollution? That's what american cities used to be like. We had waterways that were so polluted they actually caught fire.
      Water. On fire. at the time of the CWA's passage 3/4 of the surface waters of our nation were unfit and unsafe to use. Today you wouldnt know it, the cleanup effort has been so successful.

      Corporations have not, do not, and will not ever operate with the public's interest foremost in their minds.
      The only entity that does that is THE PUBLIC. And the way The Public expresses its collective will is through Government.
      Failing that, it's through guns and revolution, which isn't very pleasant for anyone, as it tends to be very short lasting and unstable and devolve into a vicious circle of re-revolution.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > However, the "increasing criminality" allegation needs citations...

      How about the many cases of prison corporations, prison guard unions and police unions lobbying against drug-war reforms?

    9. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Make it a felony.

    10. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Raystonn · · Score: 1

      1) If it did happen that wouldn't stop it. You can't stop Bitcoin any more than you can stop torrents. 2) They won't do this as it would be most inconvenient to those with wealth. Wealth controls the power structure of the world today. Once adoption of Bitcoin takes place, it would be protected by those who have it.

    11. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'll bet if the law required any property seized to be destroyed, this would be less common. Sure, the cops can seize the kingpin's million in cash, but they have to burn it on site. It wouldn't actually stop it since some cops are mean spirited and actually enjoy screwing people over just for the hell of it.

    12. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by sjames · · Score: 1

      And when Coke has strong armed a deal with all local venues to keep them from selling anything but Coke?

      At one time, the Libertarians understood that corporations couldn't be permitted to exist (and also understood that incorporation was a legal grant from the government). What happened?

      Pray tell, if the corporation in question is a prison and you have been locked up, where is your option to choose the prison that fluffs your pillow and leaves a nice mint before bedtime after a hard day of sipping champagne in the hot tub?

    13. Re:Property-seizures MUST STOP by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      There wasn't much implied by my comment. About all I can say is that the authorities are certainly stupid enough to try something like outlawing Bitcoin, but more likely they will create layer upon layer of new regulations that no one understands. The end result will be further ambiguity, which is perfect for the .gov because the objective these days seems to be to have so many laws with so many interpretations that you can basically bust anyone for anything if don't happen to like them.

      I personally think there should be free and competing money systems, and governments should use other means for generating income, that don't require totalitarianism to enforce, as is the case with the current tax system(s).

      I don't think it's as simple as wealth controlling the power structure. Certainly there are a lot of wealthy people with a lot of power, whether directly or behind the scenes, but there are also many wealthy who are just as much at risk of being victimized by the situation as you or I.

  18. Wagner by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Hitler chose Wagner; neo-fascists always choose hard rock .

  19. Bad for the rich - this will end soon by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Rich people often personally move large quantities of cash around - for reasons that are often illegal and almost always unethical, but that's not the point here. The point is that the first time a rich dude has his DIY cash shipment intercepted, this idiocy will end quickly. But what are the odds of an expensive and classy car with a classy, usually white person behind the wheel getting pulled over?

    Hmm, if drug dealers moved their cash in Maybachs they'd go untouched!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  20. Three Part Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a three part article. Start here:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

    Sheesh...

  21. It's highway robbery! by VoiceOfDoom · · Score: 1

    Didn't people used to be hanged for this kind of thing?

    --
    "Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"

    Westly, The Princess Bride

  22. Racial Profiling Much? by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Guess what racial/ethnic backgrounds the cops/self professed thugs have vs. the people they steal from? It's an easy question to answer. Case in point

    Nevada county settles suits on I-80 cash seizures Tan Nguyen of Newport and Michael Lee of Denver said in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Reno they were stopped last year on Interstate 80 near Winnemucca about 165 miles east of Reno under the pretext of speeding. They said they were subjected to illegal searches and told they wouldn’t be released with their vehicles unless they forfeited their cash.

    The suits accused the same veteran deputy, Lee Dove, of taking a briefcase full of $50,000 in cash from Nguyen after stopping him for exceeding the speed limit by 3 mph in September, and seizing $13,800 and a handgun from Lee during a similar stop in December.

    ... Nguyen was given a written warning for speeding but wasn’t cited. As a condition of release, he signed a “property for safekeeping receipt,” which indicated the money was abandoned or seized and not returnable. But the lawsuit says he did so only because Dove threatened to seize his vehicle unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.”

    The day after Nguyen had his money taken, the sheriff issued a news release with a photograph of Dove pictured with a K-9 and $50,000 in seized cash “after a traffic stop for speeding.”

    “This cash would have been used to purchase illegal drugs and now will benefit Humboldt County with training and equipment. Great job,” the statement said.

    If you look at the information about the seizures it would be immediately obvious that the targets don't look like your stereotypical redneck sheriff. Surprise, surprise.

    Want to smuggle anything? Look like a good old boy and have a NRA sticker on your car. For bonus points add some Tea Party crap. The cops will give you a thumbs up and send you on your way.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Racial Profiling Much? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Interesting story. I find it ironic that you mention Humboldt County as I was channel surfing just the other night and came across a show called Pot Cops or something. It is set in Humboldt County, and the entire show revolved around these stupid cops chasing their tales trying to bust pot growers despite the fact that the growers had permits for medicinal marijuana. The attitude of the cops was startling. They were visibly angry that they couldn't get these people into jail, and kept calling them criminals despite the fact that everything they were doing was legal. One guy had even been to court a few and found innocent each time. They still arrested him again anyway just because they are bullies. As someone who lives on the other side of the world I couldn't believe how stupid these cops were. So blatantly wrong with their interpretation of the law, and just looking for excuses to push people around, and all of this on camera! Seriously, fuck the police.

  23. better idea by silfen · · Score: 1

    "Repealing laws that make this possible" is a bit vague. What we need is to let people take governments to court, both on civil and on criminal charges.

    Also allow class action lawsuits for police stops. That way, juries can sort out which police stops are reasonable and which are unreasonable. That's much better than the political football these issues have become through civil rights enforcement.

  24. Read the previous day's Washington Post article by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/... The cops have the right to take all your cash if they stop you for a traffic violation. You have to challenge it and pay your own legal fees to get your money back, which could take a year. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent in this country.