• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    This was a good article, US centric, but interesting. Would have been better if it didn’t start with a picture of a happy looking dog and a seizure of $100k cash which the author can’t even explain. The law says you have to prove you didn’t get the money illegally, if I had $100k in my suitcase I think I would be able to explain how I got it.

    • Urist
      link
      fedilink
      281 year ago

      In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Civil asset forfeiture runs against this idea. The burden should be on the government to prove this stuff is ill-gotten gains, anything else is unamerican.

        • @Figureinplastic
          link
          101 year ago

          Try not to suck any cop dick on your way across the parking lot.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            -51 year ago

            Look its the US cops, it’s like not prodding venomous spiders, it’s basic self protection.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          You do realizing that explaining why will not cause them to let you keep the $100k. They WILL seize it, regardless of your reasons. They take note of those reasons you give so they can use that against you in a court of law, however.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          Do you like your cops freshly washed, or do you like that end of shift musk, for when you’re sucking that cop dick?

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        -191 year ago

        It must be nice to have thousands of dollars and have no idea where it came from. But realistically it’s highly unlikely that you would walk around with it.

        Presumably you either were handed it in which case you know where you got it from, or you got it out of the bank in which case you must have a business or lottery winnings or inheritance you can point to.

        I cannot imagine any innocent scenario where you have vast of money (in currency form) of which you are unable to provide origin information on.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            -81 year ago

            So they can advise where the cash comes from. The problem wasn’t carrying it it was not been able to give an adequate explanation as to its origin.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The possession of the money is treated as probable cause. The police are not tasked with finding the ultimate truth of things, just acting on probable cause.

              So you’re on the road with $10,000 in cash. The police find out. You tell them the true reason. They write it down, then seize the money because it was suspicious to you to carry $10,000 in cash.

              Then, of course, you can go petition to get the money back. At which time, you have to prove by a preponderance of evidence (the same bar as if you were suing them for damages) to get the money back.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              71 year ago

              the explanation you get to give to the judge as you now get to fight for your money back. the police officer is under no obligation to even listen to you as he steals from you.

    • electrorocket
      link
      fedilink
      251 year ago

      You don’t just have to explain it, you have to hire a lawyer and take them to court to prove it, which is opposite of every other law in the country where you are innocent unless proven guilty.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -81 year ago

        I’m not agreeing with it, but if I had $100k in my back pocket I would know how I got it. Like I said, the article should have focused on normal people with reasonable and understandable amounts, who probably wouldn’t be able to afford the court costs either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          The point is, that’s not enough. You have to prove it in a court of law. Which, for $100,000, might cost most of that $100,000 and years of time.

          There have been some clear-cut seizure cases where the legitimacy of the money was obvious and it was either not worth the legal fees to clear up or simply insane to clear up. We are a “reasonable doubt” country for a reason, and if you can’t prove someone came about their money illegally, you shouldn’t be stealing it from them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          and the cop isnt going to give a shit to listen to you, because hes still gonna take it, and you have to expend time and money going to court to prove the money is innocent.

          and even then you might not get it back

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          You’re assuming they don’t just kill you on the spot to make sure you don’t take it back

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      theres been plenty of people who ahd proof how they got their money legitimately, and still had it taken.

      Why?

      because police want to buy more military gear, and your seized cash goes directly into their toy fund.