Slashdot Mirror
CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"
jfbilodeau writes The CBC is warning Canadians about a U.S. program where America law enforcement officers — from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters — are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public's cash as they can through seizure laws. "So, for any law-abiding Canadian thinking about an American road trip, here’s some non-official advice: Avoid long chats if you’re pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go. Don’t leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans. Don’t use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs. Don’t be too talkative. Don’t be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don’t have tinted windows. And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
As a U.S. citizen, I'm baffled as to why courts have accepted the validity of civil forfeiture laws. It strikes me as a blatant violation of our Constitution.
When nationalistic Americans brag about our Bill or Rights, I wonder which version they're excited about: the version one gets from a plain reading of its text, or the twisted monstrosity that the three branches of government have foisted upon us.
Similarly, 99% of the problem could be stopped if they cancelled the Equitable Sharing program and instead insisted that all such seizures to go to the federal government, not to any local fund.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I don't know why any one in Canada would want to visit that cesspool we have what they have only without the suck and with a lot more natural spaces to enjoy.
No, the police are thieves.
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
You never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or conduct an illegal search. You may have just bought the car. It may have absolutely NOTHING personal in it. You still don't consent to a search.
Period.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Are you sure there aren't any democrats supporting this unholy mess? Cause I bet this abomination has bipartisan support.
capitalists??? they are highway robbers, worse than your normal criminals because they use the protection of government to commit their crimes,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Land of the flea, home of the slave.
You're missing the point: here in America you're *supposed* to be able to "do things that make you look like you are hauling drugs". You're supposed to be able to do whatever you want, as long as it's legal, no matter how illegal it looks.
Let's say I look like a burglar because I locked my keys in the house and now I have to climb in a window: the police have every right to stop me. If I'm (somehow) using my wallet to try and jimmy the window open, the police have a right to seize that wallet. But once I've shown that I'm not a burglar, I should get my wallet back.
The point of this article is, that's not actually how it works. From TFA:
"You’ll have the right to seek its return in court, but of course that will mean big lawyer’s fees, and legally documenting exactly where the money came from. You will need to prove you are not a drug dealer or a terrorist.
It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over. Sorry.
In places like Tijuana, police don’t make any pretense about this sort of thing. Here in the U.S., though, it’s dressed up in terms like “interdiction and forfeiture,” or “the equitable sharing program.”"
Just like so many other 'capitalists' in the U.S.
> And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
Well, of course, but I'd say "don't consent to a search, ever. At all."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And there is only one group who puts them in a position to do it the Democrats?
Please there is no effective difference in US politics, it's the same group. Hell politician's change affiliation and still get elected. Sure one side tends to do one thing or another you need something to campaign on after all. Neither wants any real change.
No sir I dont like it.
No, the police are thieves.
Exactly, the police are thieves. And they're supposed to serve and protect us.
Yeah like the mafia, give us your money or else you could end up like Michael Brown.
To think that a civilised country like the USA could even conceive of such a scam towards
its own citizens is not only mind boggling but downright scary.
everybody knows that in a banana republic the cops are all corrupt and will rip you off.
Just ask John McAfee.
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Come on, don't fall for this stuff. It's not like we are a police state (yet).
Oh yes you are. You just haven't been paying attention.
[ReidNews]
It's happened 65 thousand times according to this article. You can't assume that just because someone can't afford a lawyer that they're guilty.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
They are capitalist thieves! Ah, but I repeat myself.
The next line won't be "Okay, gtfo."
It'll be: "Sir, please step out of the car."
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
I have been pulled over twice for minor offenses such as a burned out taillight bulb and then had my vehicle searched for no cause. The police said they smelled marijuana and didn't need my consent. Basically, all they have to do is lie and the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper as far as they are concerned. They found nothing either time.
The USA is civilised? Since when?
"Choose to look like you might be doing something illegal" is one heck of a slippery slope. The problem here is that police can seize cash from you without valid cause. You are right its not a mexico like thing where they are taking $100 off random Canadians. However, you might want to think twice about that 10,000 you have to buy a classic car/motorcycle. And that is what they (the government of the Canada) are saying. That anyone should have to go through such a crazy process to get there money back (prove you aren't a terrorist or drug dealer? isn't the deal here supposed to be they have to prove you are one first?) is a sign that the laws are amiss in favor of the ever-growing local police. The ones that seem less friendly than ever no matter how innocent you are. I'd also like to point out that "This unlawful seizure has only happened in a handful of cases over the last decade" as you mentioned is not necessarily true. Please cite statistics, I believe there have been only a handful of PUBLIC cases, but that's because not everyone is interested in a media circus, guilty or not. How do you know who is guilty and who's not? By if they fight to get the money back? What if it costs more to fight it (say if you... lived in Canada)? Once again, cites please. Lastly, even if this is more PR than reality as far as travelers go, it's a good idea to warn people about US LEOs. We seem to have a very large amount of people in prison compared to any other comparable nation. Is it because we are inherently worse than them? I doubt it.
What?
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
Posting AC just because:
The US revolution was unique. Essentially it was one government breaking away from another government, and not an overthrow of the current one.
People don't know how serious a revolution gets, which is why I respect the zeal of groups like the three-percenters, but I consider them foolish since they are not going to effect change by threatening armed revolt. Instead, they need to change what they do at the ballot box, not at the ammo box. Some things about revolution:
1: It will be stopped quickly. If push came to shove, .40 pistols and AR-15s won't do much against mercenary troops, UAVs, gunships, and Sarin gas containers. One brief shock and awe treatment, and most "revolutionaries" will be slapping the Flexicuffs on themselves and their families.
2: It will be violent. Most Americans are not used to real violence. At most, they play Call of Duty.
3: In a revolution, the most brutal and violent psychopaths will be running the show. ISIS shows what happens when there is a power vacuum and the result of no government in a region. Almost every professor at the university I went to who worked/taught in that region said a group like ISIS would form, and they were right.
4: What group would end up on top? Christianity is declining, and Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years (well, materialism is the #1 religion in the US, but spending a life chasing the dollar isn't really "official"). Would people want the US to end up like Iraq with sectarian violence forever and ever, separated by racial and religious lines? I'm sure a lot of people worldwide would love this, but not people living here.
5: There are players sitting on the sidelines. The US is the world's #1 food exporter, to the point where many nations would starve if shipments ceased. If the US government got weak enough, it would be inevitable that China would invade so they would have a secure, fertile area for crop growing. Already, they have a monopoly on pork companies in the US (which is why the price of bacon has doubled this past week.) Other players would love a chunk of the US territory, be it a return of Texas to Mexico, or a Middle Eastern nation deciding they are tired of the region and choose one of the Carolinas as a new Damascus or Dubai. What happened to the native Americans can easily happen to the current US population should the government get weak.
6: The US is a mitigating power globally. Should the US weaken and stop being a player, it would only be a matter of time before the Pacific Rim got hot. If one thinks the Middle East is bad, wait until China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, even Australia start battling it out over racial and territorial disputes. China is getting belligerent , and Japan is re-militarizing.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
7: I'm sure people celebrate this, but even though states' rights are "cool", such as the Colorado candidate for governor who wants to take ownership of all Federal land and sell/privatize it, a bunch of states will be easily overrun by a foreign invasion force. The only reason why hostile actors have not fought wars on US soil directly in a century is the "united" part of the US.
8: People forget that the US government was hammered out as a 13 way compromise. Think that would happen again in this climate where the government shuts down almost every non-election year (and people forget th
Please send me a list of approved attire, standards of car cleanliness, and any other requirements for not appearing like a drug dealer.
I believe the primary rules for "not looking like a drug dealer" are:
1) be white
2) be middle-class
3) be middle-age
4) be male
5) be conventional in dress, behaviour and language
And really, if you aren't a white, middle-class, middle-age, conventional male, do you really have anyone but yourself to blame?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Unless you are incredibility stupid, or actually doing something illegal, you have nothing to fear from 99.999% of law enforcement, and for that 0.001% of the time there is a risk, there isn't much you can do anyway. But you have the same things at home I'll bet.
Are you deliberately lying or is the problem that you have not yet learned to Google before posting extraordinary claims?
Your claim is directly contradicted by an article in the New Yorker that was probably pivotal in raising the alarm. Here is a small sample:
Yet only a small portion of state and local forfeiture cases target powerful entities. "There's this myth that they're cracking down on drug cartels and kingpins," Lee McGrath, of the Institute for Justice, who recently co-wrote a paper on Georgia's aggressive use of forfeiture, says. "In reality, it's small amounts, where people aren't entitled to a public defender, and can't afford a lawyer, and the only rational response is to walk away from your property, because of the infeasibility of getting your money back." In 2011, he reports, fifty-eight local, county, and statewide police forces in Georgia brought in $2.76 million in forfeitures; more than half the items taken were worth less than six hundred and fifty dollars. With minimal oversight, police can then spend nearly all those proceeds, often without reporting where the money has gone.
It takes only a pinch of common sense to realize that if you allow a group of people the right to stop law abiding citizens and take their money and possessions with no legal repercussions then this right will be abused.
In some places it costs well over $1,000 for a citizen to start fighting a seizure. If the cops took $500 or less then fighting and winning will cost at least $500 and likely thousands of dollars more.
In a backhanded way, you seem to be saying that the police in America are a bunch of nincompoops who haven't yet figured out that it is much easier to steal smaller amounts of money from people who can't or won't fight back than it is to steal larger amounts of money from people who can and will fight back.
The way the system is set up, it may be impossible to provide accurate statistics on what percentage of these civil forfeitures had anything at all to do with criminal activity because no criminal charges need to be filed and there are big disincentives that prevent even completely innocent people from fighting back.
Many of the anecdotal stories in the New Yorker article show how easy it is for civil forfeiture laws to be systematically abused by the police. Even if the original system was created with the best of intentions it has devolved into us basically paying the police handsomely to violate people's Constitutional rights.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I don't believe this is a partisan issue. It's a matter of good and honest governance, which neither of the two major parties has clealry demonstrated in recent memory.
I'll pay the pittance for shipping online purchases and the extortion to Canada for "import fees" (wtf happend to free trade?), I'm not setting foot in American if I can help it.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
I agree, except for #4. Islam at the top religion in the US in 10 years is just silly talk. It would require MASS conversion.
Capitalism is also a legalized system of universal stealing. Good example is the USA, built on stolen land (even what they bought was stolen property) often with stolen labour.
The truth is that there is always a class of people who believe in theft and often they become the government and pass laws legalizing theft. Shit the very first legislation passed in England back in the 13th century included a provision allowing closing the commons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Taxation is a mandatory subscription to government services. Since I doubt you would want to opt out of those services (police, military, roads, judicial system etc.) it's not theft. Anyway, society decided that anyone who is part of it must subscribe, and if you leave society you can stop paying. Again, I'm going to assume you don't want to leave.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hey look, an article about Canada! I wonder if some ignorant racist english dude decided to randomly bash Quebec for no reason...
No reason? You mean the massive corruption inquiry going on right now? How about the other ones in Montreal, or Hull, I can keep going man. Let's point out the rest, my comment wasn't racist. Quebec isn't a race, it might be considered a segment of Canadian culture however. If you don't think there isn't massive corruption going on in that province, you either have never lived there, or don't know anyone who lives there now. Even your died in the wool Quebecker will tell you exactly how corrupt it is: "Very."
Om, nomnomnom...
neither you, nor the gp, has any clue what hte words "capitalism" and "communism" mean.
im just as critical of bad actors as anyone here, but in order to have any meaningful discourse you must use proper definitions, not merely a sense of vitriol.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.