Police Steal Millions from Motorists Without Charge

A rather coarse title but appropriate, nonetheless. It's actually hundreds of millions being taken from motorists.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture

Federal and state law enforcement agents seize millions of dollars from civilians during traffic stops, simply by asserting that they believe the money is connected to some illegal activity and without ever pursuing criminal charges. Under federal law and the laws of most states, they are entitled to keep most (and sometimes all) of the money and property they seize.

In many jurisdictions, the money can go to pay for salaries, advanced equipment and other perks. When salaries and perks are on the line, officers have a strong incentive to increase the seizures, as evidenced by an increase in the regularity and size of such seizures in recent years. Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling and disproportionately impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people who the police decide look suspicious and for whom the arcane process of trying to get one’s property back is an expensive challenge.

The Washington Post goes into further detail with their findings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z3

The Post found:

• There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
• Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.
• Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.
• Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials said.
• State law enforcement officials in Iowa and Kansas prohibited the use of the Black Asphalt network because of concerns that it might not be a legal law enforcement tool. A federal prosecutor in Nebraska warned that Black Asphalt reports could violate laws governing civil liberties, the handling of sensitive law enforcement information and the disclosure of pretrial information to defendants. But officials at Justice and Homeland Security continued to use it.

The Black Asphalt network is a private organization that enables officers and federal authorities to share information regarding tens of thousands of American motorists, many of whom had not been charged with any crimes. In recent years, the network had more than 25,000 individual members.

Here are some individual stories. In the 400 federal court cases examined by The Post where people who challenged seizures and received some money back, the majority were black, Hispanic or another minority.

A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, La. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

A 40-year-old Hispanic carpenter from New Jersey was stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia for having tinted windows. Police said he appeared nervous and consented to a search. They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. He had to hire a lawyer to get back his money.

Mandrel Stuart, a 35-year-old African American owner of a small barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Va., was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction on Interstate 66 in Fairfax. He rejected a settlement with the government for half of his money and demanded a jury trial. He eventually got his money back but lost his business because he didn’t have the cash to pay his overhead.

“I paid taxes on that money. I worked for that money,” Stuart said. “Why should I give them my money?”

So basically, in certain jurisdictions, the police are literally taking Americans' hard earned cash on bogus pretexts and using it to maintain their salaries. That's so.....third world. Seriously, this is quite horrifying...I had no idea that this was happening.

I've seen this for years, watched a special on YouTube years back that says it's big in Tennessee and Kentucky. In one video I've seen both the local police and state highway patrol fight over money seizures. I think I read something about this a week ago, I think some area passed laws to prohibit law enforcement from doing this by themselves, but they stepped around this through some seizure program that works with the feds like DEA and FBI to make money seizures, and just like before it brings their local law enforcement needed funds to operate. And yeah, they do this because they know that lots of people won't go through the costly and time consuming legal challenges to get that money back.

There definitely needs to be a better appeals process to handle claims. But the asset seizure tactic is sound. Nothing hurts criminals more than the police being able to take their money, drugs, vehicles and houses.

Cash seizures are just the tip of the iceberg.

They seize people's homes too ...

Not saying seizure is wrong. But if the police really can't show that they should of seized and held when the citizen first appeals then the departments should get the losing end when it goes to court. As in if they lose in court they should be forced to pay for all legal expenses for all parties out of their own budget and not supplemented.

The actual idea here isn't terrible. If someone has $75,000 worth of cash in their glove box, then I think it's fair for the police to treat it as suspicious money and potentially seize it. I mean...you have to wonder why they don't just use a bank, and that inevitably leads to suggestions of criminal activity - maybe avoiding taxes, maybe illicit sales, etc.

The problems seem to mostly lie with getting the money back. If someone can prove "hey, I got that money from X and was giving it to Y" pretty easily through a few phone calls, then I don't see why it should be a difficult process to get the money back.

I agree.

Seems to go against due process, IMO. In this country we are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The other thing I don't like is it seems (at least in the article) that police can seize money without even charging a person with a crime. It would be one thing if you caught a drug dealer, arrested them, and then seized the drug money...but being able to take people's money just because larger sums are suspicious? That's wrong in my view...and honestly I am not surprised that this kind of power seems to result in abuse.

@Renevent42: yea really what if I just decided my glove box or under my bed or where ever is where I want to keep my cash maybe even life savings. Why should I have to prove anything unless I am already suspected of something else. Is having large amount of cash on hand a crime?

Unreal. I had no idea this shit took place on such a widespread level. State sanctioned robbery. Reminds me of the stories that were told to me by a guy I knew from Liberia. He'd often mention how the police there would stop random vehicles and extort cash and/or jewelry from the motorists.

John Oliver did a segment on this last night.

@Aljosa23: John Oliver...never heard of him till now. He's seem like a breath of fresh air from the tired 'conservatives suck' liberal pundit.

Basically, if you have thousands of dollars on hand, with no job or legitimate means of having such cash mind you, yes, it's getting seized. If you can prove it was legitimately received, by all means, take the necessary paths and it will be lawfully returned. However, vast majority do not fight the seizure... wonder why?

It is not a crime, but it is suspicious based on our training and experience. It is also not a societal norm, and thus it's fair to assume a reasonable person does not keep his or her life savings in the vehicle of his or her car.

Because fighting it is costly, and even then it appears that in order to fight it you go through the DA, not a judge, so you are basically appealing to the people that took your money in the first place.

Beyond that, being able to take people's property without even having to charge them with a crime is literally saying they are guilty and have to prove their innocence. In my mind that goes against the very foundation of what our justice system is supposed to be about. I have no problem with seizing drug money if you can prove someone was actually using that money to buy drugs (and charge them) in a court of law...but not even doing that, not charging the person, and just seizing their property does not align with what our justice system is supposed to be about.

BTW, it appears (at least according to the video posted), there are cases of people with jobs, with proof of what they intended to use the money for, and yet still have their cash taken. It's an abuse IMO, and again it's not surprising the money from this system is being abused as well. Well, at least the cops have margarita machines now heh.

Since when are we supposed to have our property taken for doing things that are not societal norms? What if someone wanted to keep their life savings in their car? How can that be a just cause for police to take it from them?

I agree, if they are proven to be doing something illegal, or hell, at least charged with doing something illegal, then yes by all means take the money. But many of these people aren't even being charged with a crime and are simply having their possessions taken for simply doing something that the police deem as not the norm.

Just another glowing and glorious example of how fucked up, broken and corrupt america, the police and the govt are.

I'm looking foreward to the inevitable thread about the cops pistol-whipping a 16 year old.

What it comes down to is that it's absolutely wrong to keep the property of someone if they aren't going to be charged with a crime. It's on the Police, since we are responsible for the public trust, to make every effort to return those belongings or safeguard them until the rightful owner comes to get them.

I have never asked anybody that I was stopping if they had large amounts of cash in their vehicle. How is that even justifiable if it's not pertinent to the stop itself? Weapons, sure. Drugs, sure. Alcohol, sometimes. Cash, though?

Oliver never ever mentions conservatives or liberals on his shows. He is not a pundit, just a dude providing a funny take on some very serious and scary shit.

That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever. Not even slightly. By your own logic, the person does not have the means to fight for the money back and you are surprised that they don't take the "legitimate" means to get their money returned. This sort of mentality is what keeps classes in check because the people that lack the means suffer the most and they are the easiest target for such lunacy.

I don't blame the police for this, I blame the laws. Rand Paul has introduced a bill that would deal with this problem.

Yeah. Libertarians have been going on about civil forfeiture for years but due to them being batshit crazy it's hard to pick out the good aspects of their ideology.

We're not taking such money from your typical "good law abiding citizen," mind you. There's the totality of the circumstances that is always considered before such seizure if made; does the individual's story make sense, is where (s)he going making sense, and why (s)he is going there. What is his record, and who is (s)he associated with? It's an ad-hoc basis, but we're trying to curtain illegal trafficking of cash which is commonly used in drug trafficking, dirty money, weapon smuggling, and human trafficking on the interstate system.

I've only ever heard of troopers ask such questions.

Right. If someone, authority figure or otherwise, takes cash from your person, it's his burden to provide justification for it.

To be honest, the topic title almost makes it seem like police officers are just randomly telling people to empty their wallets out and taking petty cash from them for their own personal use. That's the kind of stuff I see in third world countries, where underpaid police officers will accept bribes in exchange for looking the other way. Of course, I understand that there is a 60 character limit on titles.

In principal, I'm not a fan of the idea. Due process should be a part of seizing money. People shouldn't have to pay fees to get the money back if it was lawfully obtained. However, you also have to consider the fact that the vast majority of those seizures are probably for illegal purposes.

In today's world, where thousands of dollars can instantly and safely be legally transferred through bank transactions, it's hard to consider too many legal reasons somebody would have $25,000 in their car. Especially since money stolen from my bank is insured by FDIC and cash is gone forever when stolen.

@ad1x2:

you also have to consider the fact that the vast majority of those seizures are probably for illegal purposes

I'll consider it as a possibility, but I wouldn't bet on it.

In today's world, where thousands of dollars can instantly and safely be legally transferred through bank transactions, it's hard to consider too many legal reasons somebody would have $25,000 in their car. Especially since money stolen from my bank is insured by FDIC and cash is gone forever when stolen.

Meaning what, exactly? How many reasons do you need? Anyhow, innuendo aside, it makes no difference; the burden still falls upon the police to prove criminality.

The cop bashing fad is getting old.

According to the original post, 41 percent of the people who had their money confiscated challenged it. That tells me the remaining 59 percent had a good reason not to challenge it. While a small fraction may have declined to challenge it because they couldn't afford to (and that goes back to my opinion that you should not have to pay to challenge the seizure) or felt they wouldn't be successful, chances are the rest of them didn't challenge it because they knew challenging it may have resulted in them going to jail over how they got the money in the first place.

When it comes down to it, not all police officers are corrupt but the ones that are end up making the news and end up being the focus of this increase of anti-police threads hitting OT lately. Just like how nobody cares about you and me because we play violent video games without incident but when Adam Lanza, who supposedly played violent video games, shoots up a school, he makes the front page and makes gamers look like unstable losers just waiting for the right moment to cause trouble.

If you want to believe that this recent uproar toward unjust force from police is merely an irrational, bigoted anti-police trend, feel free to do so. Now, if we can talk seriously...my grievance simply doesn't lie with police misconduct, My issue is with the unjust use of force sanctioned and subsidized by the state. It's with policy makers who enact procedures which carry serious consequences that they were well aware of. Any lawmaker with an ounce of brain matter knows that abandoning the burden of proof required from police to prove alleged criminal activity is sure fire recipe for abuse. Even if the state didn't know it at the time, given the escalating trends, surely there were plenty of opportunities to amend the laws and prevent such gross misconduct from taking place. Well, the procedures were not amended and now hundreds of millions have been taken from American motorists as a result - again, this was entirely foreseeable and preventable. I want to see changes in policy...that's where my interests lie. I have no interest in considering the what ifs'.

All police are is the mafia and gangs with a badge. They're actually worse. This does not suprise me that they just take what they want, when they want.