Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma State Troopers Use New Device To Seize Bank Accounts During Traffic Stops (news9.com)

mi writes from a report via news9.com KWTV: KWTV writes, "You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture. That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime. Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money." But do not worry: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," said Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent.

14 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. 4th Amendment? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?

    1. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trouble is, you have to have standing to sue. Unbelievable as it is, you can be robbed like this and still not have standing because you'requested not being charged with a crime, the property is.

    2. Re:4th Amendment? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never understood the reasoning behind this. How can in inanimate object commit a crime?

      IT WASN'T ME OFFICER! MY COMPUTER DID THE HACKING WHILE I WATCHED IN HORROR!

    3. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.

      http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

      There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).

      http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

      This authoritative statement and the holding by the Court in Boyd that the Government could not seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in a forfeiture proceeding would seem to be dispositive of this case. The Commonwealth, however, argues that Boyd is factually distinguishable, as it involved a subpoena sought by the Government for the production of evidence, whereas the issue here is the admissibility of illegally seized evidence already in the Government's possession. Although there is this factual difference between Boyd and the case at bar, nevertheless the basic holding of Boyd applies with equal, if not greater, force to the case before us. In both the Boyd situation and here, the essential question is whether evidence -- in Boyd, the books and records, here, the results of the search of the car -- the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

      We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of opinion, therefore, that

      The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial.

      Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.

  2. Re:What? by reanjr · · Score: 5, Informative

    We abandoned that shit here in the U.S. decades ago. We setup black sites to hold innocent people so they fall between the cracks of the constitutional system We even had to set up special courts specifically designed to circumvent constitutional rights and push victims through the system more rapidly and cheaply.

    And the Republicans and Democrats just cry "terrorism" and "gun violence" and think that solves the nation's problems.

  3. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is this real?

    No.

    The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc.

  4. Obligatory John Oliver by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    John Oliver addressed civil forfeiture a few years ago.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Re:What? by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Informative
    That would not only be underhanded (as it amounts to lying to the electorate conflating two issues that are not related) giving more credence to the accusations of "crooked" and "liar" that Trump tries to pin on her but also it could potentially backfire big given the history of the Clintons with eminent domain:

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the city's method of seizing land for the Clinton Presidential Library on Thursday, eliminating the last legal roadblock in the way of construction.

    The court, in a 6-0 decision with one abstention, said a Little Rock landowner failed to prove that the $200-million library and archive complex wouldn't be a park as the state defines it.

    The head of the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation said the dispute over Eugene Pfeifer III's land had been the only thing delaying construction of the 28-acre site on the south bank of the Arkansas River.

    "I'm shocked," Pfeifer said. "This is truly disappointing news."

    A decision against the city could have forced the foundation to find another site for his planned academic center and museum.

    The library ended up being built on land expropriated based on eminent domain so the tactic you proposed is, like I said, underhanded, detrimental to Clinton campaign (as it opens a can of worms that would be better sealed shut) and, in general, undemocratic.

  6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmmm....

    I don't know what the current number is, but there is an income level below which most convicted criminals live. Below that level, lots of crime; above it, relatively little.

    Now, below that income level, see what the proportions of the population are racially; what percentage of people living below that level are black, hispanic, white, etc.

    Now, look at the numbers of those groups which are in jail/prison. You'll find that it almost exactly mirrors the general proportions of the population below that income level.

    TL;DR—Crime is caused by poverty, not race. I know, it doesn't fit the narrative of the pampered children who frequent this site these days, but it is, nonetheless, true.

  7. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is this real?

    For some time police have had the power to steal cash from people if they 'suspect' that it might derive from some criminal activity, even if the suspect is not charged. If you are charged you are actually better off, because although the cash and other assets you have on you can be frozen as evidence, they can't be forfeited unless you are found guilty at trial.

    What this article references is Oklahoma testing a new electronic device, called ERAD, which can detect money hidden on prepaid cash cards in your possession. Any such funds detected can be stolen on the same pretext as your cash.

  8. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc."

    ERAD does not transfer money from banks, but the cops can use it to scan your ATM card referncing a bank account. That means that if you get caught by Oklahoma cops in a civil forfeiture stop, immediately close any bank accounts represented by cards in your wallet and transfer them somewhere else before the cops get a signoff from some compliant local court on tapping the bank accounts they found.

  9. Re:What? by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Except niggers. When black males - a 7% minority - are convicted for just over 50% of all murders, well, they earned any prejudice they get.

    You are assuming the convictions are legitimate. If you think the US justice system has any justice in it you are terribly naive.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice bullshit slam on the ACLU. The ACLU is one of the few groups that's been fighting civil forfeiture since Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984 making it legal and the supreme court approved it's constitutionality.

    Don't be a fucking liar.

  11. Re:War on drugs by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Currently polling around 10%.