Civil forfeiture is theft plain and simple.
Truth.
ACAB.
I’ve never understood how civil asset forfeiture is constitutional. It seems like a 4th amendment violation.
Can someone point me to the judicial decisions that lead to this being legal?
Because it usually happens to “those” people.
It IS 4th amendment violation, period. It just that we’re suffering from the repercussion of the fundamental problem with Common Law (USA and UK) vs Civil Law (Rest of Europe except UK.)
Reference on this. And scroll down and you’ll see a row saying "Constitution: Always (For Civil Law) and Not Always (For Common Law.)
In a court of law, they make it a legal-game-scenario where constitutional rights aren’t automatically applied to you and you have to explicitly invoked it at the right time. That kind of crap is asinine and why I think we need an overhaul politically.
It is a 4th amendment violation, but some shit judge ruled otherwise at some point so they get to pretend it isn’t.
I know they can seize other things than money but I always make a point to carry very little cash whenever I travel.
There’s very little reason to do so. You could get robbed by anyone on the way to wherever you’re going, it just so happens to be the police this time. I don’t really understand the “I don’t trust banks” nonsense.
Can you not just deny access to search the vehicle?
In the article they stated one of the drivers did that, so they brought in a “drug dog” that of course signaled at the car so they took that as cause to search. I bet that dog just signals at every car it sees
I watched a video for an ex-military lad heading home to his daughter on his retirement. He had saved up about $87k for her college fund. He had a phobia about banks, so had it all in a bag in boot of the car. He got stopped and recorded it all. The cop asked if he could search his car. He complied as he had nothing to hide, he thought. On finding the cash the police told him he was taking it. The man fought back back stating he had all his pay slips and receipts to show he owned the cash. they brought in a drug dog who found the bag when it was hidden. It is a proven fact that 90% of all bills in the US have drugs on them. He took them to court and got a positive verdict. It cost him near $20k to get his own money back.
At least in the US, the police found that the chances that a drug dog actually finds drugs is about 50/50. Which are not odds they like when it means they have to get a warrant, do the minimum amount of explaining to a judge, and do their job for once. So they found it was easier to train drug dogs to respond to signals and jump at a car on small signals or command. That way they jump on the cops suspicion and their 50% turns to 100%. If they find drugs then great, the dog let them bypass the warrantt and true due process. If not, then you have no recourse for action. Drug sniffing dogs for your local middle of nowhere PD are a joke.
“The dog didn’t miss a single drug dealer’s car, it’s just great!”
i would imagine this is contingent on people knowing their rights under the law, and most people very much do not (and cops aren’t about to help them unless they literally have to)
