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

NewYorker...I seriously, seriously hope that your stance is taken only in jest. Hell, even semi-jest.

 

Then your understanding of the 4th amendment is pretty twisted.

 

The real problem I have with asset forfeiture is that there is no way to make sure the government is acting in good faith when they seize your property. Do I want to take money away from drug dealers? Sure. Do I want to give up all my civil liberties to do it? Hell no.

 

I'm surprised NewYorker did not claim/pretend to be a previous victim of asset forfeiture who was "ok with it" in order to spur on "good debate".

That's his usual modus operandi. Ask jo mama about it.

 

"
HMRC has announced that from 15 June 2007, if you are travelling to or from a country outside the European Union (EU), you will need to declare any sums of cash of 10,000 Euro or more (or the equivalent in another currency) to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)."

So, how is this relevant again? He was traveling in the US, not outside the country and at a truck weigh station.

And, you can carry as much money as you want all throughout Europe without being subject to this assinine rule.

DD

 

NewYorker might be right about Anastasio Prieto crossing the Mexican border, looking at this article, but I don't think it does much to legitimate his argument:

They don't say he crossed the border, but he did pass a customs checkpoint, which implies he likely did. But, they didn't have a problem with him at customs, he may well have declared the money at customs, and even if he had not, he was not charged with any crime about not declaring (or any crime at all), so it's all irrelevant. You can't need evidence if you don't have a crime.

And, I liked how NewYorker volunteered that he could show statements documenting all his income, but not how he spent the money -- because that was exactly the evidence Mr. Prieto offered to show. Not that having all his receipts would be adequate either since undeclared drug income could be offset with undeclared expenses. Cash isn't auditable. No one can prove where those particular dollars came from. What the DEA is asking Mr. Prieto to do is impossible.

 

Of course, we don't know the particulars - we don't know if they often catch criminals who are carrying cash from illegal activities and then have phony income statements. Maybe they here that excuse all the time.

I'm not saying the guy shouldn't get his money back - just that it's perfectly legal to seize his cash under the circumstances and that we don't really know enough to say the gov't is in the wrong in this instance.

We'll just have to see how it pans out. But I do think that this guy suing for destruction of a photograph and having his fingerprints taken is excessive and will be thrown out by the judge.

 

Man you just dont get it. He doesn't have to put his money anywhere other than where he wants too. No matter how hard you try to justify what has happened here, that HIS money that if he wanted to, he can carry it stuffed in 24,000 beanie babies. Please show me the law, any law, that states a person can not hold his money no matter how large the sum on his person. Or show me one law that states driving around with your money, no matter the sum, can lead to it being seized without justification.

Just because YOU THINK its suspicious, does not give YOU the right to take his money away. If the gov't thought putting money in a swiss account was suspicious, does the Gov't the right to take it away?

 

NewYorker - about that earlier scenario I proposed in which you so graciously offered to show all your pay stubs/whatever in order to account for your belongings.

In order to get your property back, once the government has established "reasonable suspicion" about the money/items being seized, the burden of proof required to challenge the seizure is that you have to show "by a preponderence of evidence" that the money was, in fact, NOT associated by crime. Proving the negative is a lot harder than proving the positive.

I mentioned earlier, you have to post a 10% bond within 10 days in order to challenge it. What if you were moving to El Paso, had $5,000 on you as a downpayment for a house/car whatever, and some cop pulls you over and says "omg, well you clearly must be a drug trafficker because you have $5,000", then impounds your car? What if you lose your job because you don't have the money to rent a vehicle while challenging this thing in court? The government doesn't have to pay any damages and isn't liable for any monetary loss due to the seizure. You won't get back pay, you won't even get them to fix your car if the impound lot accidentally drops the car off a lift and totals it. The fact is, for the duration of the seizure, you're completely boned. That's not how our government is supposed to work. There is no accountability to it.

Let me ask you a final question: have you ever gotten a ticket for speeding? Hell, have you ever sped without getting a ticket?
How would you like to have your car impounded for speeding?
You: "Oh, but that's cruel and unusual punishment"
Me: "Ah, but under asset forfeiture you're not the one charged with the crime. Your vehicle is the one who is being charged as an accomplice to the crime. And since your vehicle has no constitutional rights as a legal party, you're pretty much screwed."
You: "Damn, I knew I shouldn't have argued for asset forfeiture in D&D"
Me: "Straight up."

 

Wait, so he could have just said "no" when they asked if he had any money?

Come on that is a dead giveaway that they should not have taken it.

What a joke.

DD

 

Asset Forfeiture laws suck. Couldn't have said it any better.

 

Sorry guys, the man had $23K in chase and was going through customs - a no-no not only in the U.S., but in the EU as well.

If this guy really carried around that kind of money with him all the time, you'd think this wouldn't be the first time he's been asked about cash. I have some faith in our law enforcement agents and the DEA.

These laws are effective in blocking drug smuggling, terrorist activities, and other illegal rackets. I can't believe that a truck driver in El Paso doesn't know that you can have your cash confiscated if you are carrying it around like that.

Life savings - please. Like I said, carrying that much cash in and of itself is grounds for seizure.

 

Prove by a preponderence of evidence that you weren't speeding on the commute to work today. Speeding is a crime. Your car was an agent for the crime. Police have a right to seize your car as an accomplice to your crime.

 

ok. i'll keep that in mind next time i speed.

 

Currency Reporting

It is legal to transport any amount of currency or other monetary instruments into or out of the United States. However, if you transport, attempt to transport, or cause to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time from the United States to any foreign country, or into the United States from any foreign country, you must file a report with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This report is called the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments, FinCEN Form 105. Furthermore, if you receive in the United States, currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 (or its foreign equivalent) at one time, which has been transported, mailed, or shipped to you from any foreign place, you must also file a FinCEN Form 105. This form can be obtained at all U.S. ports of entry and departure or on the Web at http://www.fincen.gov/fin105_cmir.pdf.

Monetary instruments include:
1) U.S. or foreign coins and currency;
2) Traveler checks in any form;
3) Negotiable instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee, or otherwise in a form that the funds can be transferred to another person;
4) Incomplete instruments (including checks, promissory notes, and money orders) signed, but with the payee’s name omitted; and
5) Securities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in a form that the funds can be transferred to another person.

However, the term "monetary instruments" does not include:
1) Checks or money orders made payable to the order of a named person which have not been endorsed or which bear restrictive endorsements;
2) Warehouse receipts; or
3) Bills of lading.

Reporting is required under the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act
(PL 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), as amended. Failure to comply can result in civil and criminal penalties and may lead to forfeiture of your monetary instrument(s).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports can be located at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/ports/.






U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Washington, D.C. 20229

CBP: Securing America’s Borders

Please visit the Customs and Border Protection Web site at www.cbp.gov

CBP Publication No. 0000-0503 Revised June 2006

 

Being in a car and driving should be automatic grounds for seizing your car. After all, all drivers speed. Especially on roads.

 

The report didn't state whether he filed a declaration with customs or not. And that has little or no bearing on this case.

 

yup, we all know speeders are moving lots of drugs and weapons or whatever through. you're really onto to something there. brilliant. why don't you write congress?

 

Once again, weigh station - not customs.

Also, neither the US nor the EU ban you from carrying large sums of cash within the borders.

 

Oh for crying out loud.. This whole conversation just sounds like one of those Iran CreepyFloyd debates.