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.
The link is bad. American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
Even the police are capitalist. They fiercely serve and protect their budgets.
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
American police run an extra-legal extortion racket in the name of RICO laws. They can impound property giving the citizen no legal recourse. What do they do with the money? Buy military style riot gear and surplus MRAPS. Boy, I feel safer.
http://www.washingtonpost.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.
Apparently, however, a serious lack of commas.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
First the militarization of small town police departments, SWAT teams for serving routine warrants, rising incidents of shocking brutality and now law enforcement has devolved to the point of being little better than a band of petty thieves. This is getting pathetic and scary. Foreign countries are issuing warnings about the conduct of U.S. law enforcement personnel. Am I the only person who has a problem with that?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
When I go on a road trip I always carry enough cash to buy gas to get to my destination should my credit card stop working.
I got pulled over in Nebraska and when I was getting my license out of my wallet the officer saw a $100 bill in there and ended up confiscating the $400 I had on me as suspected drug money without ever arresting me or even charging me with a crime.
I got a receipt and an affidavit indicating the amount seized and why. I petitioned the court for the return of my money and the court denied me saying that possession of that much cash constituted probable cause of drug activity and that I should be happy not to be in jail for drugs.
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.”"
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
The real source is this Washington Post article(s).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
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.
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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 commas just clutter up the natural spaces.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
CBC's article is just a Canadian take on things. The original article (just as scary) is here:
Well, yes. But it's hardly "original" -- this is a problem that has been profiled extensively for years, yet few people seem to realize how far it extends. A couple of times over the past year, when posters on Slashdot mentioned random forfeitures that happened to them, they were met with comments saying, "You must have done something suspicious" or "What's the rest of the story," and I tried to provide links to point out the systemic problem, but have been met with ignorance and resistance.
For a sample of past coverage, here's an extensive piece from The New Yorker a year ago, a piece from Reason in 2012, a piece from Forbes in 2011, pieces in Slate and The Economist from 2010, a detailed piece on NPR from 2008, etc., etc., etc. Here's an extensive account of problems with the system from PBS almost 15 years ago (around the time that legal reform forced money to go to local municipalities in many cases rather than the federal government). The ACLU has been fighting this for decades.
I know some people here may be well aware of this problem, and others may find this shocking and new. Regardless, it's very sad that it may take other countries' shaming us into taking action to fix an unjust assault on our citizens that has been going on for many years.
Neatly proving that you don't have a clue. Read this and see how asset forfeiture happens in the real world.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why are the Canadians surprised by this fact?
Two answers:
1) We aren't.
2) We need to be reminded now and then just how corrupt and borken the republic to our south actually is, as we tend to forget it and have trouble believing it.
Canadians, for all of our manifest imperfections, live in a relatively lawful country and take for granted that people in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand do as well. Despite being bombarded by news stories out of the US and UK in the past ten or fifteen years about how lawless things are getting there with their out-of-control security states we simply have trouble processing the practical implications.
Although... I renewed my passport recently and realized I haven't actually traveled to the US in over five years, whereas in the previous five years I had worked, lived and vacationed in the US. So we do kind of appreciate what a dangerous, arbitrary and lawless place the US has become, we just react by avoiding it rather than thinking much about it.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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
So did Germans in Nazi Germany.
Not really. The Nazis got control of the Reichstag by forming a plurality coalition government with other fringe parties, then negotiated with Germany's two MAIN political parties (neither of which had a majority, but both of which had pluralities that were larger than the number of Nazis, but smaller than the coalition of minor parties assembled by the Nazis) to convince them that allowing them to be nominally in charge was a lesser evil than cooperating with their traditional arch-rivals.
At the risk of getting downmodded, the Nazi takeover of Germany's government is basically the same thing that happened to the US when the Tea Party ended up with enough seats in Congress to be disruptive, without actually being able to seize outright power. We just got damn lucky that they ended up being just a few seats short of achieving their goals before Americans realized how completely nuts most of them were.
I say this with direct first-hand knowledge, because I went to college and used to be friends with some of them... there are Tea Party strategists who've studied the Nazi Party's rise to power, their tactics, and the strategies that worked. The Nazis won tiny victories, then had some of the finest filmmakers to ever walk the earth produce documentaries that were mostly fiction, but had enough truth to be accepted by many as plausible. Many of those strategists are vaguely aware that they're playing with fire, but have NO IDEA just how dangerous the game they're playing can become almost overnight.
There's a reason why the Nazis held their biggest public events at night. They used the same tricks modern directors use to turn a few dozen extras into a cheering crowd big enough to fill a stadium. They herded the attendees into crowded areas, then blinded them with arc lights so they couldn't see that the stadium was mostly empty. They deafened them with loudspeakers that amplified the (small) crowd ITSELF. And creatively edited in footage from unrelated sporting events (that DID have large crowds) to convince everyone who saw the newsreel a few days later -- including the relatively small number of attendees at the event itself -- that it was WAY bigger than it really was.
In many cases, elected Nazi officials did things that were blatantly illegal, or at least ambiguously taboo, and did it amidst a media firestorm they stoked with contrived moral outrage. They piled HUGE lies onto small lies, knowing that people would dismiss the big ones, but believe the more reasonable-sounding small ones. And every step of the way, they built up the exploits they got away until German voters started to believe they were legitimate, if not respectable.
Truth be told, most Nazi voters were fairly normal people. Many of them DID think the party's leadership was kind of nuts, but swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The Nazis used the same tactics used by modern religious cults to draw in families, then convinced them to cut off contact with friends and family members who left the party... and socially-pressure them into publicly displaying their support for the Nazi party, even if they privately voted for someone else.
We NEED to study and understand the Nazis. Not because they were in any way, shape, or form admirable (or even non-reprehensible), but because their tactics are alive & well today, and being actively used against us, and most people are fucking OBLIVIOUS to it. Over the past 70 years, we've hyperfocused so much on Nazi concentration camps that we've completely forgotten how they managed to totally pwn Germany itself... and as a result, we (Americans) don't recognize what we're seeing now as the latest manifestation of the same tactics that finally allowed them to take control of Germany, even WITHOUT a real majority. In a very real sense, the Nazis lost the ground war, but perversely won an enduring victory in the public relations realm that has scarred our society with an eternal belief that the Nazis wer
That's just the cash. There's also the cars, boats, houses, businesses etc. About a year ago the CBC had a show on this including an interview with a motel owner who had his motel forfeited due to renting out a room to a drug user. He was as innocent as could be and eventually got his business back after much hassle but it seems forfeiting houses is also common. Interestingly they only go after stuff that is paid off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism