Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
It's a Bad Time to Buy a House Anyway
From Davidson County, North Carolina, comes your daily asset seizure story:
Two men traveling south on Interstate 85 southwest of Lexington Tuesday told Davidson County sheriff's deputies that the $88,000 in cash they had hidden in their car was to buy a house in Atlanta.
Officers with the sheriff office's Interstate Criminal Enforcement unit didn't believe the story after a drug-sniffing dog found a strong odor of narcotics inside the car.
No drugs were found, and the two men weren't charged with a crime, but officers did keep the money, citing a federal drug assets seizure and forfeiture law.
If a federal judge sides with the officers, $66,000 will go to the "sheriff's office general fund." The office has collected $400,000 in a similar manner this year alone. Sez the Sheriff:
"It allows us to buy equipment without using taxpayers' money."
Via Nobody's Business.
|10.2.06 @ 10:26AM|#
Highway robbery...
I'd write more, but I can't seem to concentrate, due to the
ferocious ringing in my ears- and I'm having trouble making out the
characters on the keyboard. The sun must have gone behind a cloud,
because everything is growing...
dim
why does my left arm hurt so
|10.2.06 @ 10:36AM|#
Yes, robby under cover of law. I feel for them if their story is
true. Just another way in which the drug war is costing us.
Still, I give them a "dumbass" for carrying that much cash. Had
they never heard of a cashier's check? Bank draft? Money order?
|10.2.06 @ 10:39AM|#
I don't believe them either, but who cares? Do we really live in a country where not having a plausible story to be doing something legal is itself a crime? Why does it matter what the sheriffs "believed," especially when they have a financial incentive not to believe?
|10.2.06 @ 10:40AM|#
Doesn't matter if their story's true. This is the whole problem with civil forfeiture--it turns due process on its ears. The SCOTUS should have their building confiscated for allowing this abomination to continue.
Larry A|10.2.06 @ 10:46AM|#
"It allows us to buy equipment without using taxpayers'
money."
"Because like there aren't really any taxpayers any more, man. Only
cops, perps, and perps we haven't nailed yet."
And it works so well. If these are actually drug runners they're
probably making enough on the black market that they can simply go
back home and pull another $88K out of the safe.
Jennifer|10.2.06 @ 10:50AM|#
Still, I give them a "dumbass" for carrying that much cash.
Had they never heard of a cashier's check? Bank draft? Money
order?
A draft, money order or cashier's check for that much money would
cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. And American citizens
who don't regularly read this site probably don't worry about the
possibility of the cops legally stealing whatever they happen to be
carrying.
|10.2.06 @ 10:52AM|#
Why don't we just make Uncle Sam a joint account holder on all of our accounts? If he needs the money, why, he can just write a check! No more taxes!
Josh|10.2.06 @ 10:56AM|#
So how could this possibly be interpreted as constitutional? The last time I checked you needed to actually be convicted of a crime before the government could deprive you of your property.
|10.2.06 @ 11:02AM|#
Josh,
The property is guilty. Of something. Frankly, I think the
appropriate thing to do is to burn the money for its
wrongdoing.
Xmas|10.2.06 @ 11:08AM|#
It's not like a bank transaction for over $10,000 would cause
any problems for these future buyers. Why didn't they go to a
bank?
Oh, that's right, they would have wound up on a terrorist/drug
dealer watch list.
lunchstealer|10.2.06 @ 11:15AM|#
Josh, The 'takings clause' of the 5th(?) Ammendment states
something along the lines of no one shall be deprived of property
without 'due process of law'. That's been interpreted as a less
rigorous standard than a conviction. It requires the civil court
'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond resonable
doubt'. I just think that a preponderance of the evidence should be
a little stronger than 'there was money, and we got a dog to
bark.'
However, I'd like to see 'due process' mean at least a requirement
that a grand jury find sufficient reason to indict the individuals
in question for some actual crime.
Indeed, I wonder if there isn't some subtle training of the dog to
'show' when he recieves a subtle cue from his handler. It is
entirely possible for such a thing to happen without the handler
intending it. That possibility alone seems to be such that a show
from a drug dog should not be sufficient to deem a suprising batch
of cash to be subject to siezure.
|10.2.06 @ 11:17AM|#
Josh:
You do not need to be convicted of a crime for the government to
deprive you of your property. (And no, I'm not talking about
taxation.)
It's called 'forfeiture', and is a legal child of the 'war on
drugs'. The legal fiction is that the property seized is 'arrested'
because there is reasonable cause that it had a part in committing
a crime. The person to whom the property belonged need not be
convicted of any crime for forfeiture to take place. The seizure of
the cash will appear as a criminal charge on some court's docket
with a title like "the Federal Government versus $88,000 in US
currency". There is no longer any need for gov't agents at any
level to use due process to seize your land, cash, car or any other
property. They just take it on the flimsiest of charges. As a
society, we are so f*cked.
|10.2.06 @ 11:20AM|#
To be fair to the reporter (who I think didn't ask enough
questions at all), I've just had a lengthy email exchange with him
in which he sounds like a pretty reasonable guy. He made it clear
that the story won't stop here and is eager to uncover even
more.
If anyone has any leads or ideas for him, I'm sure he'll look into
it, so hit him up! His address is on the site.
|10.2.06 @ 11:47AM|#
Um, shouldn't we dial 911 for P Brooks? Is there a doctor in the
house?
Hang in there, P Brooks, help is coming.
(Oh, god, he's a goner. Pray for him, everybody.)
|10.2.06 @ 12:24PM|#
Um, shouldn't we dial 911 for P Brooks? Is there a doctor in
the house?
Call 911? They'll surely confiscate his arm.
|10.2.06 @ 1:21PM|#
My head hurts.
How long will it be 'til we see this:
The officers became suspicious when they observed that the subject
vehicle was being driven at the speed limit; when the driver came
to a full stop at a stop sign, and subsequently signaled for a lane
change, the officers stopped the vehicle and searched it. No
contraband was found but the driver's stash of seventy two dollars
in cash was confiscated.
A poice spokesperson said: "This was just heads-up police work.
When our guys saw him creeping along at the speed limit, and then
even signal for a lane change, it was obvious this perp was trying
really hard to evade detection. As for the cash, he said he was
going out to Seven Eleven to buy a paper. Nobody needs that kind of
cash just to buy a paper. We'll be keeping an eye on that one."
|10.2.06 @ 2:00PM|#
The problem with dogs "showing" for drugs when they're sniffing money is that pretty much all money has gone through the hands of someone who has also been handling drugs, so all money is going to smell like drugs to a dog. You're really screwed if someone bought beer with a $10 bill that he just snorted some lines of coke through and you got as change for your soda purchase.
|10.2.06 @ 2:30PM|#
During the Stalin purges in the 1930's, the legal concept of "guilt by analogy" was developed; that is, even if the action you took was not per se treasonable, if it was analogous to treasonable behavior, you were guilty of treason. Forfeiture laws work on precisely the same principal.
|10.2.06 @ 2:39PM|#
I was going to suggest they just change the bills into $1,000 notes, thus leaving them with a lot less to find, but according to this, the largest denomination still being printed is a $100 bill. That would still get you down to 880 bills, which you could probably hide pretty damn easily. Either these guys are stupid or they're not drug dealers.... or both...
|10.2.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Something about this story stinks worse than the smell of
drugs.
Anybody who would travel around the country today with it that much
UNDOCUMENTED cash "has" to be either missing part of the ball game
or trying to get in without buying a ticket.
Having flown from Texas to New Jersey, and now in transit to
Georgia, they were probably in a rental automobile, (it was not
theirs for sure), so never mind the drug sniffing dog, What about
the cash itself?
It is not illegal to carry your property with you wherever you go.
But legal ownership of that property may be required along the way.
So, where was the proof that the cash was legal? Even if the proof
"was left in a wallet on the motel room desk" a simple phone call
back to wherever it came from would clear that up. Now go ahead and
jump all over me, but in the real world today things can get hazy
even for the best of us. And if I was caught away from home with
$88 thousand in greenbacks, I'd sure as hell have some proof with
me that it wasn't just lifted from somebody else's ATM
account.
I have a friend who cleaned out his savings a few years ago and
paid $17,000 cash for a pick-up truck. About 6 months later he had
to explain to the IRS where the cash came from.
It's true that not many drug dealers take checks or credit cards,
so the penal system is now spring-loaded to be suspicious when it
stumbles over wads of undocumented cash.
So my suspicion is that, (to these two stalwarts), if they were
drug dealers, dumping the 88 G's was just the cost of a dumb
mistake. But suppose they were something else. Suppose they had
$88,000 that they had ripped off from little old unsuspecting
ladies and old men? Suppose they were Irish Travelers and had never
reported and/or paid taxes on any of the 88G stash.
Experts estimate there are 12,000 to 20,000 Irish Travelers here in
the U.S, and are home based in Texas and South Carolina. (Weren't
these two nomads from Texas?) Multiply 88G's times the 12 to 20
thousand of these vultures and pretty soon you'll be talking real
money.
If there is a home repair scam they know it or they invented it.
The women are good at shoplifting and scamming merchants out of
cash and merchandise. They take their children with them to use as
decoys and teach them scams and cons.
The Irish Travelers say their ancestors were Gypsies at the time
Jesus was in the Middle East. When Jesus was crucified, the Gypsies
say their ancestors stole one of the spikes and that is why the
soldiers could not nail-in the last spike in Jesus' neck. This way
he could still talk to his followers from the cross. They say
because of this act God and Jesus gave the Gypsies the right to
steal from then on and it would not be a sin.
So when the Irish Travelers rip you off on a home repair they say
they are doing it with the permission of God and Jesus.
In any event, there was apparently no contest for the legal
ownership of the footlocker sized pile of cash, and that fact alone
tells me something else stunk besides the smell of drugs in the
car.
Now, aren't you glad the Davidson County Sherif's office was on the
job and saved the locals all that tax money?
|10.2.06 @ 4:16PM|#
Officers with the sheriff office's Interstate Criminal
Enforcement unit didn't believe the story after a drug-sniffing dog
found a strong odor of narcotics inside the car.
It took a dog to detect a "strong odor of
narcotics"?
If a federal judge agrees with investigators, the Davidson
County Sheriff's Office would receive 75 percent ($66,000) of the
confiscated money.
Who gets the other 25%?
|10.2.06 @ 4:18PM|#
Lowdog,
Hell with that. When the aforementioned coke snorter paid his $10
for that fine six pack of imported brew you didn't get it back in
change. Instead, the $10 bill was deposited into the bank and
counted on an automated bill counter the next day by the teller.
That means that every bill that goes through that counter is
contaminated. In a 1993
Wall Street Journal article it was estimated that 80% of all
currency in the US is contaminated by cocaine. Not sure how much
would make for a "strong scent" of drugs though.
Jennifer|10.2.06 @ 5:00PM|#
It is not illegal to carry your property with you wherever
you go. But legal ownership of that property may be required along
the way
Oh, really? I have nothing to prove that I own the watch or jewelry
I'm wearing this second; does this mean a cop has the right to
confiscate it from me?
|10.2.06 @ 5:03PM|#
Jennifer,
Um, yes. Legally speaking, they can require you to bear their
young, as well, if you aren't holding a valid marriage
certificate.
Jennifer|10.2.06 @ 6:00PM|#
I remember when Jeff and I moved from our old apartment to our new one--everything we owned was in that giant U-Haul, yet we could conclusively prove ownership of exactly none of it. Lucky for us the cops had no interest in confiscating 200,000 science-fiction books and my collection of antique stereoscope cards, right, Elmo?
|10.2.06 @ 6:09PM|#
Was ist los, fraulein? Vere vere your papers? Papers ur required!! You must have ze papers!!!! How can ve go on vithout zem!
|10.2.06 @ 7:28PM|#
76
>>>>>Thanks for that racism Elmo. Please sit
down.>>>>
I'm sitting 76. Now what? Call'em American Indians? I didn't know
there was such a thing, but it it'll make you happy, there're
American Indians.
Not that it makes any difference. They're still rip-off
artists.
Jennifer,
>>>>>It is not illegal to carry your property with
you wherever you go. But legal ownership of that property may be
required along the way. Oh, really? I have nothing to prove that I
own the watch or jewelry I'm wearing this second; does this mean a
cop has the right to confiscate it from
me?>>>>>
I can't say about the watch on your wrist Jennifer, but now, about
that loose $88,000 in the back seat, , , ,uummmmm. Do you "really"
want to chance it?
PL,
>>>>>Um, yes. Legally speaking, they can require you
to bear their young, as well, if you aren't holding a valid
marriage certificate.>>>>>
What can be said about such astute and learned observation?
Jennifer,
>>>>>I remember when Jeff and I moved from our old
apartment to our new one--everything we owned was in that giant
U-Haul, yet we could conclusively prove ownership of exactly none
of it. Lucky for us the cops had no interest in confiscating
200,000 science-fiction books and my collection of antique
stereoscope cards, right, Elmo?>>>>>
Well now. . . I'd say anybody that would stuff 200 thou sci-fi
books in a U-Haul "should" be looked over, if for no other reason
than that the vehicle was probably over the hignway weight limit,
not to mention the truck itself being overloaded.
P-Nazi,
>>>>>Was ist los, fraulein? Vere vere your papers?
Papers ur required!! You must have ze papers!!!! How can ve go on
vithout zem!>>>>>
You got-it.
|10.2.06 @ 10:15PM|#
What can be said about such astute and learned
observation?
Words mean nothing. But I accept large sums of cash.
Well now. . . I'd say anybody that would stuff 200 thou sci-fi
books in a U-Haul "should" be looked over, if for no other reason
than that the vehicle was probably over the hignway weight limit,
not to mention the truck itself being overloaded.
Obviously, Jeff and Jennifer rented a U-Tardis. How else could they
get 200,000 science fiction books into it? Duh.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245