Asset Forfeiture: ACLU Sues DEA Over Trucker's Seized Cash

who said anything about racism. who said they were thieves. I guess the only way to argue the other side of this case is to set up your ridiculous straw men.

no cred

 

Based on my initial reaction, reinforced by googling the term, I think I would define 'due process' as something that exists independent of the law, and I would say that the letter of the law in this instance violates 'due process'. In other words, the right to fair process is due to people irrespective of the law, so saying the 'due process of the law' here would be a misnomer.

source

[rquoter]
Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or alien, as well as to corporations.

In that, the "how" is procedural due process. Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all? Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law that makes wife beating illegal but permits husband beating might be declared to be an unfair application. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process.

The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional. The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus. Another application has been to strike down legislation requiring certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be confined against their will.

[/rquoter]

This law presumes guilt and requires the accused to prove his innocence and so the law violates due process.

 

I'm not really sure how this does not effect a governmental taking without a hearing in violation of the Constitution.

 

To you maybe, but it is HIS money, why shouldn't he be able to carry it?

DD

 

The truck driver just wanted to "make it rain" at the next truck stop.

 

23K doesnt even seem like that much really

i mean if ur a trucker and u are away from home for months on end, I could see how it might be normal to have alot of cash on you for emergencies / truck repair money etc etc

 

The average long haul trucker (and I represent a good number of them) are not away from home for months on end. They are away from home for 4 or 5 days, and then back home for a much needed rest.

 

Because carrying 23K across the border requires an explanation more than I don't trust a bank or my house. Besides, it makes no sense to hold savings in cash, since it will lose 50% of it's value every 20 years. Wouldn't you buy property or gold even?

And if it really is his life's savings, well, it shouldn't be a problem if it takes a few years to get it back right? What's the rush - it's his savings, he's not planning to spend it anytime soon right?

I don't buy it though. Who would carry that kind of cash on them constantly. The risk of getting robbed is too high. Who does that?

I think the DEA has reason to hold onto the money for a while, especially if he can't show where he got the money.

 

forreal
you can be stopped for any reason . . .even they just don't like your face
then
you can be arrested [even threatened to have charges made up against you]

What is being through of as SUSPICIOUS if getting more and more suspect everyday
You change lanes .. ooooo that is suspicious. . pull them over
they had tinted windows. .. that is suspicious
They were parked in a parking lot .. . . . suspicious

What is *not* suspicious these days?
basically it is set up so . .that they can hassle you about ANYTHING at anytime
and
what the other thread about the cops show you is simple
they will pull you over and hassle you . . and make up the justification later

and because we understand the stresses of a cops job
we accept their word without question
we accept just give them MAJOR benefit of the doubt . . in everything
and
we accept their bad behavior as job stress

to some people
Cops .. not not just cops. . AUTHORITY FIGURES . .
can do no wrong. . .
if Cops shoot an unarmed man ..
well he should have laid down sooner
he shouldn't have said something
he shouldn't have had a wallet or a cell phone. . .

Anytime we see an abuse of Authority
we get more excuses than a little bit
[unless it is on THE OTHERSIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM]



Rocket River

 

There are very few countries in the west that you can cross the border with over $10K in cash and not be held in deep suspicion. You have to have a good reason for it. You just don't do it. How many people here have ever moved more than $10K on their person through customs?

This guy moved over twice that amount across the U.S. - Mexican border - and he did not declare it at the border. So it's very much reason for him to have his money confiscated. And the thing is this guy knew that moving large amounts of money across a border and not declaring it is unlawful.

He actually had violated procedure. Personally, I feel little sympathy for him and I suspect he's just trying to cover up illegal activity by claiming it was his life savings.

No one moves that kind of cash across a border as a truck driver and not have something going on - c'mon....are you guys really trying to defend him?

 

Please, you act like we live in a police state. Do you ever think that most of the time, criminals are just being treated like criminals and crying foul to appeal to people such as yourself?

 

Well, I can't find anything that actually says he crossed the border with that money - nor can I find any indication that he's been arrested or charged with anything.

I find it hard to believe he wouldn't declare the money at the border, if he crossed it - since he told the officer he had it.

The Government deprived him of his property without due process, and is now making him jump through hoops to get it back - this is why people are upset.

 

It was at a weigh station, not a border crossing.

 

Well there's the point. You, nor the Gov't has to "get it". You dont have believe him, you don't have to think about anything other than...He wasn't proven to be guitly of any law, nor was he held, neither should his money. You can ASSume all you want, it is NOT the basis for lawful withholding of one assests. Nor is it possible to prove a negative in this case. What are you going to say "well yeah 2 years ago I got a check and cashed it" ??? Have some of you gone mad?