DEA asset seizure on SWC ($16,000)

[MattW]

Can't the sleeper doors lock from the inside? Just lock it and let them either get mad and leave when they're bored, or make them break down the door without the warrant that they either can't get, or could be torn to shreds by a first-year law school dropout, and let them explain why their agency has to pay several thousand dollars to the Federal Government for destruction of its property.

 

[FormerOBS]

Matt:

Yes, but that wouldn't help a passenger who is traveling in coach, or who is in the diner or lounge, or who has to leave the room to go to the rest room, or who just isn't as fast as the stranger who pokes his nose into the room. If the Conductor is spineless, he/she can get the door open for the intruder in spite of the lock.

Tom

 

[neutralist]

another strong case of storing values in bitcoin. it is not seizable.

 

[boxcarsyix]

IIRC the feds have been seizing Bitcoin.

 

[Anderson]

IIRC the feds have been seizing Bitcoin.

They have in some cases. There have also been some cases where they tried to do so and, well, they couldn't actually find the bitcoins.

 

[jis]

That happens with real coins too, when they are stashed away in Cayman Islands or North Korea or some such

 

[neroden]

The correct description of the DEA behavior here is "armed robbery". (And some people wonder why police aren't trusted?)

 

[user 1215]

Meanwhile, a drug runner is sitting three seats back, chuckling...

 

[Guest]

Royal Blue provided an interesting link from the DOJ's OIG on DEA conduct. I broke it down for easier reading:

This report focuses on what are sometimes referred to as cold consent encounters. These can occur in one of two ways:

(1) when an agent approaches an individual based on no particular behavior; or

(2) when an agent approaches an individual based on the officers perception that the person is exhibiting characteristics indicative of drug trafficking without the officer having any independent predicating information.

The encounter typically entails the officer asking for consent to speak with the individual and, if the agent thinks it warranted, to seek consent to search their belongings.

These encounters are considered voluntary because the officer does not seek to require the person to participate in the encounter or submit to a search based on prior information about the person or their connection to drug trafficking.

 

[tommylicious]

carrying around $16,000 cash in a modern society--> could also have been avoiding taxes.

 

[Ryan]

 

[jis]

carrying around $16,000 cash in a modern society--> could also have been avoiding taxes.

Therefore of course the gendarme should have the right to seize the money? Are you really that naive to actually believe this random theory of yours allows confiscation??

 

[Devil's Advocate]

carrying around $16,000 cash in a modern society--> could also have been avoiding taxes.

So in your view random conjecture is reason enough to confiscate without cause? There could be any number of perfectly legal motivations for carrying currency which is why any search or seizure should be based on a clear and justifiable suspicion which can be tested against the time honored tradition of reasonable doubt. Rather than a vague and unsubstantiated accusation levied against an inanimate object as currently exists. There is no logical reason for our justice system to operate in this manner. Civil asset forfeiture as currently implemented is little more than lawful theft by the authorities. For future reference the vast majority of individual tax avoidance events are in the form of unpaid use taxes resulting from interstate purchases by credit card. I can't shake the feeling that I'm talking to a child about something two or three grades above their current level of comprehension.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Evidently tommylicious has never been in Vegas or other Casino towns where people carry LOTS of Cash!

I personally have had over $10,000 in $100 Bills several times after Big Wins, but of course stupidly Lost it back since I was playing with House Money!

And $16,000 isn't Drug Kingpin or Tax Dodger money, it's actually less than the price of the average economy car or a Year @ a University!

People that excuse abuse of power by governments make it easier for them to become even more corrupt and terroristic! ( see Germany, 1930s)

 

[rusty spike]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Perhaps the poster meant evasion. If he's a taxpayer, I hope he knows the difference. :unsure:

 

[jis]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Perhaps the poster meant evasion. If he's a taxpayer, I hope he knows the difference. :unsure:

Good point rusty. I indulge in quite a bit of tax avoidance, like by contributing to charity and paying down a mortgage on primary residence and on and on.

 

[Anderson]

On this topic, I'm reminded of a rather infamous incident where a business owner had several hundred thousand dollars seized under civil asset forfeiture and also got hit with a "structuring" charge because he had made a large number of bank deposits of $9-10k on a regular basis. He'd been doing it because his insurance company told him not to carry around more than $10,000...but the government took it as him trying to dodge the reporting threshold. I think he ended up signing away something like half of the cash to get the other half.

Edit: As a more nuanced thought here...it would be one thing if the government were permitted to impound the money (and/or property...there have been a few cases of absurd non-cash seizures, such as a family's home being taken when their kid was charged with "possession with intent to distribute") pending a charge rather than take it outright. Even that would be bad, but it would be an improvement if there were a principle that "you can interdict the cash to begin with, but you cannot take permanent possession of it if you do not convict the individual of something".

However, even this raises the specter of government coercion (see the issue with plea bargains, or the fact that if you beat one set of charges the government on occasion has others related to it they can bring...and since they'll be separate offenses, double jeopardy does not attach) which is a major problem.

 

[FormerOBS]

So do we just wave goodbye to pesky little inconveniences like due process? Is "presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty" just a charming, outmoded historical curiosity? There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. I have some in my pocket right now. Is it written anywhere that there is a limit to the amount I can legally carry? If so, just what is that limit? Can they still harass me and steal my money if I'm $1.00 below that limit?

Stealing a law abiding citizen's money doesn't seem to be a very effective way to catch the supposed drug dealer you believe to be a few seats away. It just keeps the law officers busy chasing chimeras while the drug dealer chuckles all the way to the bank.

Tom

 

[neroden]

I carry significant amounts of cash when travelling because: my banks are local to one area, I don't use interstate banks (because most of the big ones are crime syndicates), nobody takes travellers' checks any more, and credit cards can be unexpectedly "denied" for spurious reasons. This is actually pretty normal among seasoned travellers now. I wouldn't usually have as much as this fellow, but it's a completely reasonable amount to have if you expect to have to do things like make a deposit on an apartment or an office without a local checkbook.

In our "modern" society the banking system sucks so bad that I would expect heavy usage of cash.

The thing is, the DEA and other criminal "police" organizations rarely target guys like me. They target small businessmen who are carrying their life savings to move to a different city, not guys who have backup accounts and lawyers on call. They specifically target people who they expect will be unable to fight them in court. They know that what they're doing is criminal robbery, so they don't do it to people who have the resources to fight it; they do it to people who they think will be unable to fight it.

 

[Guest]

I carry significant amounts of cash when travelling because: my banks are local to one area, I don't use interstate banks (because most of the big ones are crime syndicates), nobody takes travellers' checks any more, and credit cards can be unexpectedly "denied" for spurious reasons. This is actually pretty normal among seasoned travellers now. I wouldn't usually have as much as this fellow, but it's a completely reasonable amount to have if you expect to have to do things like make a deposit on an apartment or an office without a local checkbook.

I don't think it should have been confiscated but it is not a reasonable amount.

As far as your local banks......haven't you ever heard of ATM'S? You don't need a local checkbook to write a check. Also wire transfers for large amounts, I do that all the time. You don't have to bank with a local bank either. You can bank online. You can even deposit checks online with many banks. Credit Cards, always carry a couple, never had one denied but if it were the other Credit Card is a backup.

 

[rrdude]

I carry significant amounts of cash when travelling because: my banks are local to one area, I don't use interstate banks (because most of the big ones are crime syndicates), nobody takes travellers' checks any more, and credit cards can be unexpectedly "denied" for spurious reasons. This is actually pretty normal among seasoned travellers now. I wouldn't usually have as much as this fellow, but it's a completely reasonable amount to have if you expect to have to do things like make a deposit on an apartment or an office without a local checkbook.

I don't think it should have been confiscated but it is not a reasonable amount.

As far as your local banks......haven't you ever heard of ATM'S? You don't need a local checkbook to write a check. Also wire transfers for large amounts, I do that all the time. You don't have to bank with a local bank either. You can bank online. You can even deposit checks online with many banks. Credit Cards, always carry a couple, never had one denied but if it were the other Credit Card is a backup.

Why would you want to go to ATM's, several times while traveling, and probably pay a few dollars fee EACH time you use it, if you prefer to carry cash? Sure, carrying cash has it's risks, (loss or theft) but ONE of the risks should NOT BE some over zealous small time PD seizing it under the "Civil Forfeiture Laws" or some other BS. And who wants to go into a bank and go thru the hassle of dong a wire transfer, I'm with the NEO, "carry the cash". (Preferably in $2.00 bills........ nah, that wud be a great big roll))

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

From one of the newspaper article links in this thread: After taking all the passenger's money, "The agents told him that it was his responsibility as to how he was going to survive and get home." I think that is the most vicious part of this whole awful situation.

I had been looking forward to eventually going across the country on the Southwest Chief. It is now off my bucket list.

I have not heard of this sort of thing on the east or west coasts--is it just kept quieter? Or is it a culture out there in the southwest that they just assume if you're taking the train instead of driving or flying, you must be trash and a criminal? Are the other cross-country trains like this, too? If so, I will have to save up for the Canadian if I ever want to go to the west coast.

 

[rrdude]

From one of the newspaper article links in this thread: After taking all the passenger's money, "The agents told him that it was his responsibility as to how he was going to survive and get home." I think that is the most vicious part of this whole awful situation.

I had been looking forward to eventually going across the country on the Southwest Chief. It is now off my bucket list.

I have not heard of this sort of thing on the east or west coasts--is it just kept quieter? Or is it a culture out there in the southwest that they just assume if you're taking the train instead of driving or flying, you must be trash and a criminal? Are the other cross-country trains like this, too? If so, I will have to save up for the Canadian if I ever want to go to the west coast.

No kidding. And this was AFTER he had them call his family, and AFTER he told them he was moving from one state to another. Both could be outright lies, BUT, both could be the absolute truth too, and do NOT seem unreasonable to me at all.

I'd luv to be able to "Drop the Dime" on one of these Pseudo-Law Enforcement Officers as they were traveling on vacation while off duty, see how THEY like getting their life saving seized. (or a few thousand of their dollars...)

Sickens me to my stomach reading stories like this.

 

[Nomad]

The only mention of god to be found anywhere in all of this is in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence where it talks of "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" which "entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

See: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

In the second paragraph, who do you think the reference to the Creator is suppose to be? Jackson Roykirk?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

From one of the newspaper article links in this thread: After taking all the passenger's money, "The agents told him that it was his responsibility as to how he was going to survive and get home." I think that is the most vicious part of this whole awful situation.

I had been looking forward to eventually going across the country on the Southwest Chief. It is now off my bucket list.

I have not heard of this sort of thing on the east or west coasts--is it just kept quieter? Or is it a culture out there in the southwest that they just assume if you're taking the train instead of driving or flying, you must be trash and a criminal? Are the other cross-country trains like this, too? If so, I will have to save up for the Canadian if I ever want to go to the west coast.

I wouldn't cross the SWC off your list. I traveled on it last October and had no problems. Sounds to me like the DEA was "profiling" and I suspect neither you or I would be picked as someone to search.