The movie, Rebel Ridge, does a decent job showing just how bad this can be in a small town. It's not exactly realistic for how the former Marine depicted chose to try to resolve the situation... It does give room to consider just how corrupt it can all be. Consider if you live in a town with only one bank.
Clearly the bank and the police have a relationship and in a small town, odds are they all know each other quite well. Say someone withdraws money from the bank. Then the teller sort of rats you out to law enforcement or someone adjacent to law enforcement. They manufacture an excuse to pull you over just as was done in this Nevada story. The movie Rebel Ridge goes into the difficulty in even getting your money back in the first place. At one point they explain a large part of the police departments funding comes from this. Then again, it isn't just small police departments getting kick backs, it's everyone involved to run up the cost for someone who had their money stolen.
At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".
One of the more insidious versions of this is the static thresholds for things like "a suspiciously large amount of cash", which are not inflation adjusted, causing them to effectively shrink over time. A $10K cash travel limit established by the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970 would be over $80K in 2025 dollars. The law is structured so that the net is constantly tightening by default.
> When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing.
It's already happening, and it probably just depends on the teller you get. I have no idea if it's policy or not, but I've been questioned pretty intrusively for cash transactions even under the reporting limit of 10k (see: BSA, CTR).
You are probably questioned more about cash transactions under the reporting limit. Over the reporting limit they file a form. Under they have to determine if they need to file a form.
> At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality.
Already true in Brazil where I live.
It's just the financial arm of global warrantless mass surveillance. I highly recommend not allowing them to do this to you.
Brazilian central bank developed a digital centralized money transfer system called pix. You already know where this is going, right? At first it was great: instant, zero fees, no taxes. Right now the entire nation is angry about the fact our IRS equivalent will start using the pix transaction data to cross reference and audit citizens. If you move more than ~800 USD your financial data gets sent to the government automatically.
I like to believe that Brazil is some kind of test bed for dystopian nonsense like this.
Are you sure the "any amount" generalization is true? I know in Switzerland of money confiscated at border control for simple suspicion, but we are talking (tens of) thousands. Although there's a certain obligation of declaration those people always "forget", that situation stays shitty, but in any case it's a very very far cry from "any amount".
While I don't disagree with the general statement, I do want to add the nuance that this isn't true for small amounts of cash money. Recently, the government even recommended people to keep more cash on hand in case of emergency / large scale disruptions to the financial system.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption.
It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply. Pretty scary that this is accepted as normal!
>It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object
That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
It's the explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
This here dog is an officer of the law and he smells money in your car, and uh, ya see, that money's wanted. please step out so i may confiscate it. Disagree with his infallible assessment? that's disorderly conduct sir, place your hands behind your back.
>> the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply
That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.
SCOTUS is out of touch with reality. And I'm not reacting to Trump-era decisions - even under Obama, the justices were watering down the Bill of Rights in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013).
Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest.
It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")
Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
> but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply.
The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property".
Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.
yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason
It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
"It doesn't matter that you don't consent to the search. We're not searching you, just that stuff that is attached to you. So, shut up, or we're arresting you for interfering"
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't different in its principles. It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc. Essentially, this is an ex parte action against the asset forcing the owner to prove ownership in order to get legal standing to challenge in the court. It's a terrible system, but it utilizes the same principles found in other Civil laws. These lack of protections is why people push back on things like red flag laws and why legislatures are increasingly looking to use these to bypass things in the criminal side (see TX trying to allow actions against abortion seekers, or CA saying they'll do the same to gun owners).
>> It's civil meaning there is no right to an attorney, the burden of proof is lower, etc.
That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.
Forfeiture is different from seizure. Seizure is perfectly legal, and even ought to be required pending completion of a court case.
Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on seized property.
I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process. However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are not so speedy anymore.
As you note it's not built into other legal systems. In which case, those other legal systems aren't automatically corrupt or based on extortion.
A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the protection of citizens, etc.
Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like Roman justice.
This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should.
> a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should
And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
I'm afraid that this happened, where it is so plainly and fundamentally wrong, expresses that something is fundamentally wrong with the police, and I think it is across the USA? as this behaviour is I think widespread?
We have it here in the UK as well, although it's not quite as harsh (except for large amounts of cash, which the police don't consider normal). The seized items were either being actively used in the crime or it can be shown could only have been purchased through proceeds of crime (eg admin assistant earning 20k who was drug dealing) has a million pound house with no other explanation)
It's a very US thing that for every fine principle such as presumption of innocence, there is an equal and opposite "loophole" or way to bend the rules, that is allowed to make that principle far less effective.
> The US legal system (unlike some other countries) is built on the presumption of innocence.
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
Sorry, but civil forfeiture is 'civil' not legal. The US Justice system has completely bypassed all kind of US Level systems controls/protections simply by reclassifying them as 'civil' not 'criminal' because our protections only apply to 'criminal' law, such as the huge differences in the standards for a finding of guilt between civil and criminal law.
> Civil forfeiture completely contravenes that principle and is therefore essentially extortion and corruption
I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist
http://crn.hopto.org/media/#government
Allowing a privileged force to simply take someone's valuables with no recourse or trial, potentially taking their food/gas money while far away from a safe place... Saying that it's the valuables that are suspect. Makes sense... as a punishment
I wonder what happened. Traffic stop, seizure of "life savings," something about the drug enforcement agency.
I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
Don't hold your breath for the next step where they pass laws criminalizing any attempt to find or use such loopholes, so cops can be jailed for trying to use civil asset forfeiture in any way.
In some sense a large amount of law is closing loopholes in earlier law. You're right that my wording was a bit loose, but what I'm saying is Nevada could pass a state law saying "Any attempt by law enforcement to carry out civil asset forfeiture in any way is a felony."
I think the best way to defend against this type of abuse is to make it law that any assets collected by police are not allowed to directly benefit the police or the government they represent.
Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.
Readit News
At some point, civil forfeiture laws will lay the foundation for having any amount of cash being a sort of assumption of criminality. Consider too that smaller banks and even large banks have reserve requirements but not enough to cover all of the deposits. When most money exists in digital form in a database somewhere, over time, the concept of real paper money gets that assumption of wrong doing. Almost like it is the financial equivalent of "you must have something to hide, or else you would be using your credit card".
It's already happening, and it probably just depends on the teller you get. I have no idea if it's policy or not, but I've been questioned pretty intrusively for cash transactions even under the reporting limit of 10k (see: BSA, CTR).
https://www.fincen.gov/fact-sheet-industry-msb-suspicious-ac...
Deleted Comment
Already true in Brazil where I live.
It's just the financial arm of global warrantless mass surveillance. I highly recommend not allowing them to do this to you.
Brazilian central bank developed a digital centralized money transfer system called pix. You already know where this is going, right? At first it was great: instant, zero fees, no taxes. Right now the entire nation is angry about the fact our IRS equivalent will start using the pix transaction data to cross reference and audit citizens. If you move more than ~800 USD your financial data gets sent to the government automatically.
I like to believe that Brazil is some kind of test bed for dystopian nonsense like this.
Although we don't have civil forfeiture, this is already true in The Netherlands.
Even with large amounts of money, it's not like they're knocking on doors, looking under yer bed.
That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
You really have to twist that in bizarre ways to come out saying "yeah but we can seize that guy's money."
There was a case a few years ago where the parents lost their house because their son once was caught with drugs in the house.
That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.
Previously, if you refused to talk to the police, that was considered invoking your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, hence the standard advice from attorneys to keep your mouth shut until they were present. Now, you must explicitly invoke it every time the police question you or your silence can be used against you, even if that silence was in response to informal questioning on the street with no intention of arrest.
It all makes sense when you consider how privileged the modern Court is: few of the justices in 2013 or today have actually worked as criminal defense attorneys, and only one has ever worked as a public defender (Ketanji Jackson, for two years; I will give Ginsburg credit for her work at the ACLU, but that is still a notable step above being a public defender). We haven't even had a justice whose read the law (became a lawyer without getting a law degree from a law school) since the death of Robert Jackson in 1954. (Robert Jackson is also the man behind the famous quote "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.")
Now, almost all have come from privileged backgrounds, went to Ivy League institutions, live in gated communities, are completely detached from the reality of what the average American knows about the law, and certainly aren't going to be taken advantage of by the cops. It's no surprise we've seen such an assault on our constitutional rights: they don't understand what life is like outside the ivory tower.
The loophole is that money, unlike most other inanimate objects, isn't considered "property".
Any fine should have the option of a court date attached in order to follow due process, like a traffic fine. But many types of fines don't have the presumption of innocence, or the day in court prescribed. Civil forfeiture is an extension of that process, also relying on the fact that money isn't property so taking it away doesn't violate the "no person may be deprived of property without due process of law" constitutional article.
yeah, I know that's the argument, but it flies in the face of all reason
It comes from "we know you're guilty but we can't prove it so we're going to take your stuff away". But that's what presumption of innocence means -- if you can't be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt then you're not guilty, period! (You might in fact be guilty, but under the law you're not guilty.) Otherwise, there is no presumption of innocence and the police can do whatever they want, just like in some countries where the police are a law to themselves.
Like how you're legally supposed to not have an "expectation of privacy" for your mail, because it's handed by the post office...
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
That's a cute story, but it still goes directly against the 4th amendment, which make no distinction between criminal or civil or any other "type" of law.
But doesn't the CA law explicitly acknowledge this by saying if the TX law is ever knocked back the CA law automatically becomes null and void?
Forfeiture is the end means of seizure.. usually. Forfeiture does not require a court case. Forfeiture can, in some circumstances, be determined without a court case. Most often and fairly universally means when no one offers a claim on seized property.
I have read on this a many times myself and have conflict with it. I started off with naturally believing it is violation of 5th + 14th amendments. I only hold now that it is likely a violation of the 14th, but its quite complicated.
Seizure in this sense ought to be illegal given no due process. However, SC has opinions that property itself can be ruled against. Further, has ruled in many instances that innocent owner defense is not sufficient, thus innocent owner must prove that the entrusted party acted out of consent/contract.
I recommend reading 983 article guidelines for asset forfeiture/seizure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983
It is not simple, at all. Most guidelines really are in favor returning property. IMO, timelines could be adjusted so they are a bit harsher on government considering speedy trials are not so speedy anymore.
I'm not a lawyer of course
A legal system is designed to advance a purpose: justice, the protection of citizens, etc.
Assumptions of guilt or innocence aren't immutable laws of the universe. They likely simply reflect prejudices held at the time of creation, or inherited from even older systems, like Roman justice.
This story doesn't hint at corruption or extortion: a plausibly innocent man was swept into a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should.
And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
It makes more sense when you ask "Who bears the burden of these loopholes?" and the answer is always "They disadvantage people of colour".
In theory yes, but in practice, I had to plead guilty to get out of jail after spending 6 months in jail, otherwise I would have had to spend another 6 months in jail just waiting for my trial.
So you are presumed innocent but they don't mind keeping you in jail anyways.
I hate civil forefeiture, but let’s not get lost in hyperbole. It facilitates extortion and corruption, but so can almost any police power. The problem is in its conflicts of interest and abridgement of due process, particularly, that of elevating probable cause to grounds for the public taking of private goods without compensation.
I'll add taxes to the list.
Nice cartoon on the government.
I can guess what happened, but it would be nice to know the story behind the lawsuit. Like... cop did a search, found a ton of cash, took it as if it were drug money, gave the money to feds, never charged anybody with a crime, feds give most of the money to the cop's precinct. But I just made that up.
On the other hand, the point of the post is to explain the legal argument that won, and its implications for upholding the right against unreasonable search and seizure. And it did that.
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
Loopholes aren’t illegal, they’re a problem with the law. Using the law to criminalise loopholes is Kafkaesque.
Bonus diverting money or property would be a federal crime.
Maybe just have it all go into an evenly distributed tax rebate, or a giant pizza party for the town. Basically, remove the incentive.