Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Civil Forfeiture Laws Are Wrong. Can We All Agree on That?
Another example of actions by the police that show a lack of Protect and Serve. No one should have their things seized when they are not convicted of a crime. No one should have to sue to get their car back.
I especially like the bit where the police ask if the car is paid off. Really telling.
I want to support the police, but I don’t support thieves any more than I support looters.
Published in General
Allowed? Who’s to know? You don’t declare stuff when you’re leaving a country, only when entering.
There are different levels of crime, too, with different levels if adjudication and so forth. In many states, criminal cases involving up to 1 year of prison can be adjudicated by a “justice of the peace” who has no requirement of any legal education, training, or experience. But they probably do the most damage in other situations such as evictions when landlords are not held accountable to the same laws.
I would assume that in most of the kinds of cases we’re talking about here, my car is charged with the same crime I am.
Last year I sold a trailer and a vehicle to people who came in from a different state to buy them. A couple of decades ago, the standard for this transaction was a bank check to the seller. The ability to print fake bank checks has improved greatly, and banks act somewhat irresponsibly with these checks. They credit your account quickly, and if it’s a fake you’ll find out a week or two later when you lose the money.
Long story short, the only way you can safely sell a vehicle to a stranger is in a cash deal. When I said I wanted cash, the buyers didn’t object; it’s the only way to do it. Nobody takes bank checks from a stranger any more.
But if you were going to do something like that for FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, the amount the band people were carrying around, would you bring CASH with you, in advance/up front? People answering ads on Craiglist etc, have wound up dead for less. At least, go look first, and if you’re satisfied with whatever you intend to buy, go to your bank and get the cash THEN.
People get in car crashes every day, with fire etc. $50,000 of cash becomes $0 worth of ashes very quickly.
Another option is, if someone brings a bank check, take it to THEIR bank (i.e., a branch thereof), where they can verify funds, and CASH it. Which then goes immediately into YOUR bank. While the prospective buyer is still there, and while you still have possession of whatever it is you’re selling.
Something else I’ve done in the past, is take a check – even a personal check – being used to pay for something, to a check-cashing place, and get it cashed there. If the fee being charged is “too high” then add that to the sale price. If the check turns out to be bad, the check cashing business might try to recover from you, but legally their recourse is with the “issuer” of the check. If they can find them. Either way, it’s not YOUR problem. That’s one of the things they charge those fees for.
I don’t understand. Maybe it’s a semantics question, but how can an inanimate piece of property be accused of a crime? The possessor, it seems could, but the property itself? What is the legal thinking?
Yes. Actually, I’ve spoken to Customs officers at a US airport and they said that they have seen brief cases with a million dollars in them, and they just have to be declared upon entry. I mentioned civil asset forfeiture, and they just dropped their heads and said, We don’t do that.
And what is the crime of “being so stupid” involving transporting cash donations? Travellers can’t necessarily open a US checking account.
The money constituted donations from individuals from a variety of churches that the group played at. There was no misunderstanding here. And no reason to suspect drugs sales, and in fact, every reason not to. Receipts were documented in a log book at each location, and various envelopes held portions of cash labelled for distribution to various churches back home. The police even went on line and watched their web site.
Imagine the staff meeting where they discussed these details and decided to grab the money anyway. Could one possibly be more morally bankrupt?
I think the IRS and maybe DOJ have some different opinions on that. Especially on taking cash OUT of the country. I remember seeing disclosure forms on such things, including criminal sanctions.
Just for the sake of transportation, I would suggest, at minimum, buying money orders payable to themselves, and keep the receipts in a separate location. Money orders can quickly turn into ashes too, but it’s less of a problem if the receipts are intact.
Well, they didn’t kill the band members, did they? It was a largely peaceful theft.
Yes, but it’s legal — so it’s therefore moral. Right? The good news is that once this particular incident reached the national press, the DA(?) gave the money back. But this is rare.
Oh, and for the purposes of Customs, even Cashier’s Checks (and I believe Money Orders) count as the types of money that need to be declared.
Yes but at the point they were preparing to leave the US, they could wire the money to themselves or their bank in Burma or wherever.
So you think carrying cash should be a crime. Nice to know.
Once the right to carry cash is taken away, they can track and control our money.
I don’t think it should be a crime. I think it’s mostly stupid. Especially if you’re driving all over and risking having it be lost or stolen in various ways.
Come to think of it, if non-criminals were smart, then the only people running around with lots of cash WOULD BE criminals.
So it’s the cops stealing it then?
It is stupid, in part, because the police might steal it from you.
That is far from the most likely bad outcome.
That’s far from the most likely bad outcome.
I should be allowed to carry cash without being worried the Government will take it from me just because they claim I might be using it in a crime.
If you think it is reasonable for the government to take it, please say so. Just because you think it is stupid, is not a reason to sanction theft.
Not my point, but I guess you’re not going to understand that.
Agree, we have sold many things online over the $10k or $20k mark. We take cash only because we know it is good. Even certified checks are not verified money nowadays. Cash is safer. Sadly the government do not like cash transactions. Harder for them to take their part of the vig.
The sad part they weren’t morally bankrupt. They were just doing business as usual. Just in this case they had to give it back. Of course there are no repercussions to anybody about doing this sort of thing.
How do you think government takes their part of the vig, if you do bank checks?
There’s always the possibility of counterfeit cash, too. Maybe not a big worry if you’re buying or selling something for $1,000 or even $5,000. But if I was buying or selling something $20,000 or over, and wanted to deal with cash, I would go to my bank with the seller, or go to the buyer’s bank with the buyer, get the cash, and immediately take it to my bank to deposit. Or figure the seller would immediately take it to their bank to deposit, and if they didn’t I’d figure they were idiots.
When I sold my old place and bought my new place, the cash difference was $60,000. Neither I nor the seller of my new place, would have wanted to handle that much cash. Just for the hassle, and counting, etc. Plus I would have been taking it in a U-Haul truck for 1500 miles, much of it at night. Including night-time re-fuelings, etc. But it wasn’t cops that I would have been concerned about taking it.
The vig is called taxes. The government wants parts of any transaction. Or at least look at it and have a government official judge if it is taxable by their estimation. This is one of the reasons there is a push to remove physical money and move to credit / debit cards. If I want to give $20,000 to anybody that is my business and my business only.
But it’s the worst outcome because the police are there to protect people and property, not walk off with it.
Worst, yes. Except I guess for the possibility of criminals taking it, AND all the other stuff you have, AND killing you and maybe those around you…
This idea that it’s fine to carry cash except for the dastardly cops, sounds like… I dunno… building your house without a roof because a one-in-a-million microburst might tear it off, but rain is less of a concern to you?
Actually, it looks like the truth is the opposite of your argument. You’re saying don’t ever carry cash, or have it visible in your home, or even in a private safe in your home, because of the off chance of a criminal gang breaking into your home, and asking you if you are storing large sums of money, leading to the possibility of criminals taking it, AND all the other stuff you have, AND killing you and maybe those around you.
But that doesn’t happen driving down the interstate. The police do this with the full support and encouragement of the law. You are basically saying it’s better that the police steal your earnings or your life savings (they’ve done this, too) than any other run-of-the-mill armed criminals. This is an upside down concept of law and order.
No, it’s not about “driving down the interstate.” It’s about stopping at rest areas for… rest…., restaurants for meals, gas stations for fuel, etc. Any of which could lead to being robbed, not counting possible road-side breakdowns, etc.
And I’m not saying it’s BETTER. I’m saying it’s FAR LESS OF A RISK. So the idea that the primary risk of carrying cash is that the POLICE might take it from you, versus all the other thieves etc, is silly. So you have a list of 400 people whose cash was taken by the police, over… what, how many years? Versus how many people get their cash taken by muggers, etc, in a place like New York or Chicago, maybe in a SINGLE DAY???
To use a Biden-ism, “come on, man!”