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.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Innocent until proven guilty, huh?
Alright, just gotta prove that the money is clean. You need to hire a lawyer to do that.
What are you gonna pay that lawyer with after all your money just got seized?
Oh, and better do it fast - rent is due soon.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I think that nice iPad you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
..yeah, no potential for abuse of police powers here, no sireee.
I think that smartphone you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that laptop computer you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that Rolex watch you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that diamond ring you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that expensive jewelry you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that pizza you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that car you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
And the police unions wring their hands talking about how nobody trusts police anymore
Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?
Civil forfeitures have been upheld in Court however, recently the Justice Department has moved to limit the use after the problem of Counties seeking to balance their budges using this tactic against out-of-townees passing thru, became alarmingly common
I thought that was something that only happened in stories about Ye Olden Days (like Robin Hood) but this is literally highway robbery!
As though I needed another reason to *not* visit Oklahoma. It's now officially the Alabama of the South.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The neat trick they use to pull this off is they're not charging -you-, a constitutionally protected person with a crime.
They're charging your property with a crime. Your property has no constitutional rights.
This just proves how far law enforcement thinks that can go to tread over the rights and civil liberties of citizens in their pursuit of 'catching the bad guys'. This will not end but it has to. If a patrol officer has the authority to seize your bank accounts based on suspicion, whats to say they can't seize any and all assets based on nothing more than a "gut feeling". There is no requirement of proof on the officers part. Justice has deteriorated in the US. Crime has dropped to all-time lows, yet the headlines scream that there are rampant criminals stealing and profiting from drugs, terrorism, arms, whatever fits the headline of fear mongering. It is not right.
When will the citizenry of the US wake up and take back the power that has been slowly bled away form them over the last 50 years?
Don't get me wrong, I want the cops to get the bad guys. But do it right, not slimy, not by taking away the rights of free people.
The "unbanked" use prepaid cards as their savings accounts.
"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.
Besides the absurdity of having to prove that you own your own possessions, there is the problem that many police forces simply declare it as "part of drug proceeds" and it is nearly impossible to get back.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Forbes has a slightly more informative write-up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.
The perception was that drug dealers were living high off of their ill-gotten gains: owning houses, boats, off-road trucks... and flaunting their wealth in the community.
We didn't have enough evidence to charge them with drug-related crimes, so we invented civil asset forfeiture to compensate: if you even *looked* like you could be a drug dealer, you could have your assets confiscated and sold.
And the proceeds can go directly to the police department to further their anti-drug campaign. Under this new law, drug crime became a self-correcting problem as the proceeds went to fund ever-more expanded police operations. ...except that it didn't. Drug use is as high as it ever was, police can confiscate anything you own on a whim, and the action is not tied to evidence or charges, and neither the police nor the prosecutors can be held liable for mistakes and errors.
This was a problem for 20 years, and eventually the US attorney general made a ruling that in general, you can't sieze cash as civil-asset forfeiture.
(But the OP is apparently about state-sponsored seizure, not federal.)
This will to go to the supreme court, will cost about $2 million in wasted effort for some poor schmuck, cost about 10 years wasted time for some poor schmuck, and be overturned. In the meantime, OK state cops get a free pass to steal money from anyone.
And of course, when the government is eventually found doing something illegal, they are told to stop. When a company is found doing something illegal, they pay a small fine and don't admit to any wrongdoing. When a citizen is found doing something illegal, they go to jail.
And when a citizen is wrongly accused, it costs a lifetime of wages and a year or two of life effort just to escape the state's error.
What I don't understand is why more police aren't being shot in this nation. The police are trashing lives on a whim, and some of those trashed lives will have nothing to lose. I haven't had a polite interaction with a cop in 20 years, and most people say that the best policy is to avoid them at all costs. Parents are starting to teach their children not to call the police for help.
The police hurt a lot of people, unnecessarily, and a lot of people are getting desperate.
It surprises me that we're not in full-out revolt.
Yes. No. The brief answer, due to piracy the US decided the owner of the ship didn't have to be convicted. As long as the ship was used in a crime, it could be seized and sold to recoup damages. Up until prohibition, this was an obscure niche. Then they started to hit hard on cars transporting booze, buildings and land containing stills producing booze, basically if you've rent or lent your property to a third party that used it for something illegal you were fucked. In the drug war, they stretched it further seizing motels where renters sold drugs and even family houses where their kid sold drugs or seizing a rented sail boat because they smuggled one joint. Really, one joint.
Today, they've stretched it even further, they just allege that it's probably some kind of illegal money and you have to prove it's not even when you're right there and claim ownership of it as your own property. As in, your fourth amendment rights don't apply until you prove it's your property so the fourth amendment applies. Honestly, I don't know why they even give a fuck about warrants anymore. Just break down the door and later in court argue that they were charging the door, not your property. It wasn't protected until you claimed they were illegally entering, of course by then you're already tazered as a potential threat. You lose, bro.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's a distinction without a difference for many. A lot of people use their paycheck to recharge a prepaid card. Effectively it is their bank account even if not in name.
The fact remains, you had money before and now you don't.
No, no. Remember your right-wing ideology. You have to socially elevate yourself until you're the one taking the money from the plebs. That comes from hard work and grit, son.
It is no different for a few. About 8% of Americans don't have a bank account. That's not nobody, but it is accurate to say the vast majority of people have a bank account. Thus the distinction matters to most people. If you have a bank account and also use prepaid cards, then this is a distinction that could be very important. Only for the people who do not have bank accounts is there no difference.
Also it matters in terms of the law and who they are fighting with. Try to take money from a bank account without a warrant and it runs afoul of a number of banking laws, not to mention you are picking a fight with the banks.
Because of both things, you'd get a TON more pushback since it would affect a lot more people and since there are some heavy hitters (banks) involved. As it stands, it is the sort of thing that only preys on some people who are not as likely to push back, most most it will have little to no effect on.
There's a reason it is being done as it is, it IS a distinction that matters legally and practically.
And ERAD gets 7.7% of all seizures.
Where's Timothy McVeigh when you need him?