• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OK Can Now Seize Money From Prepaid Debit Cards, Without Filing Criminal Charges

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,072
Reaction score
34,558
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
See now THIS is something the ACLU ought to take up...the whole IDEA of forfeiture without a conviction. SCOTUS needs to take this up. I wonder why that hasn't happened.

It really boggles the mind. How this crap hasn't produced an explosion in public fury I don't understand.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,009
Reaction score
9,886
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
See now THIS is something the ACLU ought to take up...

https://www.aclu.org/cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al

The ACLU has spoken out strongly against laws like this and have taken up some cases like the one above, but they can't take up a case unless someone is harmed by the law and then wants the ACLU's help. You can't come in and sue over something that hasn't harmed you.

If I were ever a victim of these stupid laws the ACLU would be the first organization I'd contact, right behind a lawyer.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
See now THIS is something the ACLU ought to take up...the whole IDEA of forfeiture without a conviction. SCOTUS needs to take this up. I wonder why that hasn't happened.

I don't have a problem with this and long as the legal remedy for getting legally earned cash back is quick and easy.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,009
Reaction score
9,886
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It really boggles the mind. How this crap hasn't produced an explosion in public fury I don't understand.

The concepts of "well it helps the cops! they can take cars and trucks and money away from drug smugglers and the like." People have a hard time thinking something like this would be abused right up until it happens to them or a friend.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,009
Reaction score
9,886
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't have a problem with this and long as the legal remedy for getting legally earned cash back is quick and easy.

Generally its very expensive and complicated.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al
In Arizona, civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be charged with or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.
In this case, Pinal County law enforcement used this unconstitutional scheme against Rhonda Cox, an innocent county resident, to seize and keep her used truck, violating her First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights. In order to keep her truck, the state didn’t have to prove that she did anything wrong – let alone criminal. In addition, the County Attorney’s office informed Ms. Cox that the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws would doubly punish her if she pursued her claim and didn’t win—in the end, she would lose her truck and be required to pay the county’s attorneys’ fees and investigation costs, which would exceed the value of her truck. Ms. Cox couldn’t absorb the financial risk involved, so she was forced to withdraw her claim and give up her truck to the authorities.

That's just an example case, but I'd say it's not rare, and it's probably the same thing in OK. You can fight for your stuff back, but if they decide to not give it to you, they'll tack on some extra charges for bothering them.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't have a problem with this and long as the legal remedy for getting legally earned cash back is quick and easy.

I think you should rethink that position. What is wrong with due process and why should we EVER allow it to be circumvented by "the state"? What is gained?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
12,590
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
See now THIS is something the ACLU ought to take up...the whole IDEA of forfeiture without a conviction. SCOTUS needs to take this up. I wonder why that hasn't happened.

They are and have.. all over the country. John Oliver has a nice segment on this fascist behaviour.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think you should rethink that position. What is wrong with due process and why should we EVER allow it to be circumvented by "the state"? What is gained?

Many times money is the only way to punish drug dealers. If you have $100,000 cash on you and it was earned legitimately it should be easy to prove that it's yours. Remember this is a civil matter so innocent till proven guilty is not part of the process.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Generally its very expensive and complicated.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/cox-v-voyles-et-al


That's just an example case, but I'd say it's not rare, and it's probably the same thing in OK. You can fight for your stuff back, but if they decide to not give it to you, they'll tack on some extra charges for bothering them.

I know that it isn't easy to get it back which is what needs to be fixed IMO.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,072
Reaction score
34,558
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many times money is the only way to punish drug dealers. If you have $100,000 cash on you and it was earned legitimately it should be easy to prove that it's yours. Remember this is a civil matter so innocent till proven guilty is not part of the process.

IDGAF. The Government doesn't have the right to seize your property on a whim.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,009
Reaction score
9,886
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
IDGAF. The Government doesn't have the right to seize your property on a whim.

And at the very least it should be that they can only take it for a limited time, like 2 days, and if they can't provide enough evidence to charge the person with a crime then they should get their **** back.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,072
Reaction score
34,558
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And at the very least it should be that they can only take it for a limited time, like 2 days, and if they can't provide enough evidence to charge the person with a crime then they should get their **** back.

And be able to *#*@(*ing sue if it can be demonstrated that property was seized without reasonable cause to suspect it's legitimacy.
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
16,658
Reaction score
12,473
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is the exact kind of thing the 'law and order' people will defend and have no problem with, but then in the next breath those same people will complain the government is getting too big and the US is turning into a police state.

I don't get it.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IDGAF. The Government doesn't have the right to seize your property on a whim.

Sure they do, if you have a bag of white power on your seat when the cops pull you over they can certainly seize it til they determine if it's drugs or not. I don't see any difference if the bag contains hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,072
Reaction score
34,558
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure they do, if you have a bag of white power on your seat when the cops pull you over they can certainly seize it til they determine if it's drugs or not. I don't see any difference if the bag contains hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's not a whim, and while drugs are illegal, cash is not.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Many times money is the only way to punish drug dealers. If you have $100,000 cash on you and it was earned legitimately it should be easy to prove that it's yours. Remember this is a civil matter so innocent till proven guilty is not part of the process.

What? It's not a civil matter at all. And even if it were, one doesn't win or lose a civil suit until it's been adjudicated. Frankly, this should scare the crap out of everyone. That camel's nose thing and all.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What? It's not a civil matter at all. And even if it were, one doesn't win or lose a civil suit until it's been adjudicated. Frankly, this should scare the crap out of everyone. That camel's nose thing and all.

"Civil forfeiture" isn't a civil matter, sure thing Maggie. Maybe you need to read more about it.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's not a whim, and while drugs are illegal, cash is not.

ill-gotten cash is and since it's a civil matter the burden becomes on the owner of the cash. My only issue is the legal remedy for getting back legitimate cash should be quicker. There is simply no possible way it could work the other way around as there is no way to prove that cash came from illegal means.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Many times money is the only way to punish drug dealers. If you have $100,000 cash on you and it was earned legitimately it should be easy to prove that it's yours. Remember this is a civil matter so innocent till proven guilty is not part of the process.
It's only a civil matter because the government artificially decreed it so for expediency purposes. Drug dealing is a criminal matter, hence any associated activity and/or gains associated is in reality a criminal matter as well.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
"Civil forfeiture" isn't a civil matter, sure thing Maggie. Maybe you need to read more about it.

Sorry. What it IS and what it should be are two different things. And even civil trials saddle the plaintiff with the burden of proof.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,269
Reaction score
12,590
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sure they do, if you have a bag of white power on your seat when the cops pull you over they can certainly seize it til they determine if it's drugs or not. I don't see any difference if the bag contains hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Even worse, if they find more than X amount (varies from area to area) of money, then they can seize it as "suspected drug money" and you wont get it back. Europeans are always recommended not to travel with large amount of cash in the US.. because the police (and criminals) can do this.

Forbes Welcome

Billions have been seized this way.. and go to funding local police.

Forbes Welcome

Since 9/11, without warrants and despite a lack of criminal charges, law enforcement nationwide has taken in $2.5 billion from 61,998 cash seizures under equitable sharing. This federal civil forfeiture program lets local and state law enforcement literally make a federal case out of a seizure, if they collaborate with a federal agency. Not only can they then bypass state forfeiture laws, they can pocket up to 80 percent of the proceeds. So of that $2.5 billion seized through equitable sharing, local and state authorities kept $1.7 billion for their own uses.

That is one hell of an incentive, if they can legally keep 80% of any money seized regardless of charges being made or not.... for a small local police force who is under massive budget constraints.. this can be and is the main source of funding (along with unwarranted fines). The whole Ferguson mess exposed that a huge portion of the public income came from the police seizing values and giving out fines galore to people (mostly blacks).
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
ill-gotten cash is and since it's a civil matter the burden becomes on the owner of the cash. My only issue is the legal remedy for getting back legitimate cash should be quicker. There is simply no possible way it could work the other way around as there is no way to prove that cash came from illegal means.

The burden of proof in a civil trial is ALWAYS on the plaintiff.
 
Top Bottom